Talk:The Boys (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Sexual assault?

Isn't rape a more accurate description of what Deep did? --46.7.192.113 (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The show title card warns that it contains scenes of rape. The episode I watched implied oral rape or worse, but only the blackmail before the act was shown thankfully. Some readers may have different opinions but I think downplaying the behavior as anything other than rape is inappropriate and also inconsistent with the intention considering the source material. Instead of your opinion or my opinion is probably better to either use the title card as a source or to use reviews of the episode as source, that way we're being objective. -- 109.76.223.71 (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
What you both said. It's 2019 people. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are both synthesizing the information, and we don't get to do that. Find a source that calls it that, and we're in business. Until then, its oral sex. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The show is a self-documenting source, correct? Literally the first thing you see when you start playback after the Amazon logo is a content card. The content card reads as follows:
The following program is intended for mature audiences and contains Adult Content, Graphic Language, Graphic Violence, Nudity, Strong Sexual Content and Rape.  Viewer discretion is advised.
There are no other scenes it could possibly be talking about. The cards are changed from episode to episode, so this is not referring to events that are shown much later. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't agree with Sebastian and I don't think it is appropriate to downplay the rape of Starlight, but in theory it might refer to the series as a whole and other episodes such as attempted rape Starlight prevents or the implied the rape of Becca Butcher. I'm surprised reviewers haven't given them more flak for using rape a plot device, but it was implied not shown, and they did tone it down from a gang rape in the source material. We've a local consensus of 3 saying it's rape, those who disagree need to add to this discussion. -- 109.77.229.35 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sexual Violence in THE BOYS: An Analysis and Discussion". ComicsVerse. 23 July 2019. rape by coercion is absolutely, 1000%, rape. The Deep is a rapist. Annie is a survivor of sexual violence.

I said above it would be better to have a source, to be completely objective, because there are always some who disagree, not because I believe we need a source. -- 109.77.229.35 (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Tl:dr - Allow me to be clear: we aren't alloowed to Sherlock our way through an article. As others have pointed out, opinions will disagree (even amongst editors, if you can imagine such a thing), which is why the litmus for inclusion is not Truth, but Verification. every opinion or view in the article must be supported by an external source speaking explicitly about the issue. Contributor: 109.77.229.35 did what an editor did not: they supplied a source. This protects the article from destabilization and the regular flame-y stuff that occurs without a source.

All we needed was a source. We have that now. Source the statement, and we're good. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

May it please the court, it wasn't 109.77.229.35. [1] - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Lol, fair enough. Let the record reflect the correct attribution of the editor adding the link. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
IL beat me to it by minutes and updated the article with the same link coincidentally. -- 109.77.229.35 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Point out that Butcher murders Stillwell's baby?

The show just kind of zips past that. Yay? Nay? - Immigrant laborer (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We don’t know if Stillwell's baby is still alive or not because it wasn't confirmed on season finale episode. I don't think the baby should be presumed dead until it is confirmed next season or the series developer confirmed in an interview. — YoungForever(talk) 23:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

In-universe plot development vs cast list

Myself and another editor have been reverting the character list back to something more neutral and less in-universe. The explanations (via edit summary) have been as follows:

But it pretty much started here, with no explanation.
The article is an overview of the subject - in this case, the tv series. We tend to avoid in-universe points of view,(esp. in cast sections), favoring instead the actors who give life to those characterizations. There are several GA and FA exemplars of how this is done. We do not Sherlock or Hardy Boy our way into interpreting the primary data of the character actions. If a reviewer points out a choice that an actor made in the portrayal of that character (like this, for example), then we can include that characterization. Not before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to be quite as strict as you (Sebastian) are being but I appreciate a certain level of vigilance, and think descriptions should introduce a character rather than describe plot that is better left to the episode summaries.
Earlier edits by User:JonMor93 added a lot of bloat to the Cast section and were not good in my opinion. Although not ideal I thought the edits by Bluerules were better written and far less verbose. Perhaps with some discussion we can decide what details we think are most important and make sure they are included, but I'm definitely of the opinion that less is more and that Plot and Episode Summaries don't belong in the Cast section. -- 109.79.69.130 (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the article is to give an overview of the subject. That is what my edits have done. We need a full and accurate overview and that's not present in the current version of the article, especially for the Deep's description. The article currently only focuses on the negative attributes of his character - "Quick to assert himself towards those he feels are beneath him, the Deep sexually harasses Starlight and is implied to have a history of sexual misconduct." The edit I made adds that the character "is also insecure and believes that he is not respected by the other members of the Seven." - a full and accurate overview.
The explanation for the revision was "leave the character development to the plot summaries". Of the most recent edits I made, the only thing that could be interpreted as "character development" is that Hughie is "Initially meek and passive, he becomes more confident as he learns to fight back against the corrupt heroes." The other edits are not interpretations of the primary data of the character actions. A-Train being "addicted to Compound-V" is a neutral observation that gives a full overview of the character. The Female being "forced to join a terrorist organization, she was kidnapped by Vought International and injected with Compound-V, leaving her in a violent and unstable state." is a neutral observation that gives a full overview of her character. And I also removed the "He later forms a bond with The Female." information from Frenchie's section, which would be more fitting in the plot summaries.
The original point of contention was that the descriptions were too long, which I agree with and I have working on keeping them as trimmed as possible while ensuring that they provide an accurate overview of the characters. In my last edits, the character descriptions are shorter from where you claim "it pretty much started here, with no explanation." (and that edit was also fixing grammatical errors and removing unnecessary information.) The only point of contention here seems to be the information about Hughie starting off meek and passive before becoming more confident, which again, I understand how that is being perceived as "character development". So I do not have an issue with omitting that from my future edits while restoring the rest of the changes I have made because the other information provides a full overview of the subject. Bluerules (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you coming by to talk about this, Bluerules. Respectfully, I disagree. You will note that the section is called 'Cast' and not 'Characters'. There is a reason for that. If you think the characters are described too anemically, create an article on Homelander, on Hughie, on Butcher, etc. Create episode articles to delve into the personal growth of the characters as portrayed by the actors (with plenty of references, of course). It isn't needed here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I understand the issue about plot development, which is why I am not opposed to removing the information about Hughie's personality. My other edits, however, are not about the personal growth of the characters. My edits to the Deep, A-Train, and the Female are to give a full overview of their characters and my edit to Frenchie is actually removing in-character development in respect to his bond with the Female. Yes, the section is called "cast", but it still contains descriptions of the characters. If it's acceptable to include the negative qualities of the Deep in this section, then it should also be acceptable to include his redeeming qualities. Otherwise, the information becomes negatively-slanted. I am also not opposed to potentially removing more from the character descriptions so long as a full overview is maintained and if the issue in regards to the Deep is simply the mention of his personality, I have no issue with removing (or at least trimming) the negative aspects as well. Bluerules (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Press release

Most watched show apparently. Trying to find the original press release ideally but haven't found it yet. -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Used 2 of the sources and added to the article under a section "Audience Viewership" (since that's what Netflix streaming shows seem to list instead of Ratings). If anyone can find a copy of the original press release or actual ratings please do add to the article. -- 109.77.209.211 (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Production

There are lots of articles about the show already and each seems to contain small details about the Production and design and the rules the writers have set themselves. So far I've only found small nuggets in each article.

  • Entertainment Weekly interview with Erik Kripke where he explains how he wants to keep the show grounded in reality: "No gods from mythology, no aliens from other planets," Kripke says. "It’s only humans who suddenly found themselves with these extraordinary abilities."
  • Reddit AMA with Erik Kripke

There are a few other interesting points but to start a Production/Development section we need at least few more. I will try to come back to this post and add more sources later and start a Production/Development section when I've got what I think is enough sources, but if anyone wants to do it first, go for it. -- 109.79.93.67 (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Typically they aren't, and I am not sure of our stances on A2A sessions. So, if the Reddit lists its sources, follow them, verify that the sources are accurately represented and then cite the actual source, not Reddit. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll keep that in mind. I don't see how using a Reddit AMA is any worse than using Twitter but I try to avoid both anyway. Kripke does seem to repeat some of the same kinds of answers he gave in the AMA in the EW interview, and I hope I'll be able to find most things repeated elsewhere. I'm not in any rush. -- 109.79.93.67 (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
If a Twitter account is verified with a blue verified badge, then it is a reliable source. It is not a reliable source, if a Twitter account is not verified with a blue verified badge. — YoungForever(talk) 04:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@YoungForever:Could you link a location within Wikipedia where we have made that determination of source reliability, please? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: Template:Twitter & WP:TWITTER — YoungForever(talk) 04:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, I thought that was what you were referring to. You should make every effort for the rest of your Wikipedia-editing career to avoid ever using self-published sources. And social media sources - not matter whether they are blue-badged or tattooed across the forehead - can be deleted. How many people in the spotlight who have royally screwed the pooch via tweet then deleted it? Please, for the love of Sweet Chubby Jesus, find another source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: WP:Twitter-EL. Clearly, you did not read this which covers WP:VER as it is considered a primary source as it is considered a primary source. — YoungForever(talk) 06:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I did, though I am now growing a little concerned that you are overlooking the massive caveats they put in place about using it. They would prefer if you didn't, but if you absolutely must, it has meet some pretty hefty criteria. Find another source, please.
And here's another point: if it was so critical to an understanding of the series, why is no other reviewer mentioning it. We don't manufacture importance here; it is formed by those who we cite (reviewers and the like). If it isn't important for more than one source to observe, there is every chance that it is trivial or unimportant view. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: If a tweet from a verified Twitter account got deleted, then we can't use it, duh. Creators, writers, and directors of TV series with verified Twitter accounts sometimes tweet they will be directing and/or writing a certain episodes and/or tweet episode titles of the following season. However, when there is more reliable source available, the certain tweet will be get replaced with the more reliable source. — YoungForever(talk) 06:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Tbh, I am not sure if you are just not understanding what I am saying, or willfully ignoring what I am saying. In either case, allow me to be perfectly clear.
I will hold any Twitter-fed source to an astonishingly high bar for inclusion, primarily to protect the article from the inevitable back and forth that comes from adding social media rambling, but also because of an apparent willingness on your part to seek out an actually reliable source that addresses the tweet in question. Fun fact: in a choice between a blue-badged tweet and a reliable source that speaks of the tweet, we will use the second as a more stable source. Every. Single. Time.
TL;dr: articles aren't built like filling a stuffed animal with whatever is readily available. We use good quality material to help the article remain stable. Shite sources - or sources that are whimsically deleted - create snags upon which edit-wars and overblown, overlong talk page are created.
Find a source that will stand the test of time, please. Also consider that, if a more durable source has not reported about the tweet in question, they don't consider it important. And neither should we. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: I know what you are saying. You are saying that tweets from verified accounts or not are never to be used under every circumstances. I got it loud and clear. — YoungForever(talk) 06:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@YoungForever: Dude, so not what I said.
Look, let's try this another way. Imagine you are in a building that is on fire. Regular sources are like taking the approved fire exits to get out of the building and to safety. Less reliable sources, like self-published autobiographies are like jumping out of the third-story window; maybe the source will be sturdy enough and you land without incident, but you're just as likely to bust a leg or two.
And frankly, I can't think of a connecting metaphor for twitter nonsense that is so trivial that a normal reliable source won't write about it. Because it is trivial.
Look, the news is constantly littered with Twitter tweets either getting deleted along with their accounts over this or that. Why not avoid that crapbag of annoyance and try to avoid less-reliable sources? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: Look, we going around in circles with this. I will not be responding to this discussion with you anymore. — YoungForever(talk) 15:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Um, fine. If you were going around in circles, that could be because you were going the wrong way and simply got dizzy when I kept trying to turn you the right way. Good day to you, madam. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Shaun Benson as Ezekiel

Consensus had been reached, removed Ezekiel's sexuality. — YoungForever(talk) 01:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I want to point out the "homosexual" is considered to be derogatory and offensive nowadays according to GLAAD [2]. The term "gay man" is the preferred term to use. In other words, it is not appropriate to use "homosexual". An editor and various ip addresses keep on adding "homosexual". Should we use the term "homosexual" or "gay man" or neither (if neither, please state another term that is more appropriate)? — YoungForever(talk) 14:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Both are correct, given GLAAD's position I guess 'gay man' is as good as any. Reading the prose in the article, the description doesn't feel unnatural or anything (sometimes the wording can feel forced). I like it like it is and we can keep an eye out for people who try and change it anonymously. 87Fan (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind GLAAD, doesn't Wikipedia have a policy on this somewhere? The guideline WP:GAY? seems to apply, although it says when describing living people.
Does the character description even need to highlight this? As he is a fictional character how can we even be sure? It feels forced and it would be better to leave it out entirely. He's a scumbag drug trafficker too but we don't mention that detail. It is not a defining characteristic, his fake religiosity and his ability to stretch are the only relevant details that need to be mentioned. Neither Delete it. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It's relevant as he is pretending to be straight in the public eye. — YoungForever(talk) 17:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
As I am the one who replaced 'gay' with 'homosexual,' I wanted to weigh in.
I was wrong. After looking at the source that YoungForever provided as well as checking both the sources of WP:GAY and limitied online research, gay is a more appropriate term to use than homosexual in practically every instance. Mea culpa.
That said, I think that Ezekiel's sexuality isn't really explored in the series and since he seems so far in the closet as to practically be in Narnia, I think probably that MSM is probably a more on-target term. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
In terms of writing style it is not an improvement to leave readers with an unexplained acronym that they may need to click through to understand what it means. His sexuality is not a relevant as character description.
It is only relevant in the episode summary and because Hughie uses it against him, but in that case the words extort and outing already provide the necessary meaning.
With real life people it usually makes sense to be considerate and accept how they wish to describe themselves. This is a fictional bad guy, it is better to address the story and his actions, not his fictional sexuality. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth the term homosexual was was added by User_talk:Cloaked_gecko with the not particularly helpful edit summary that claimed "Fixed typo". The previous wording merely described him as "closeted". The text seems to have been first added by User_talk:JonMor93 one his many verbose additions to the Cast section, and the wording he used was "Shaun Benson as Ezekiel, an elastic superhuman, who leads a "Capes for Christ" campaign and is really a homosexual." Again I reiterate my earlier recommendation of brevity. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also the episode summaries are all a little bloated. Template:Episode_list says ShortSummary "A short 100–200 word plot summary of the episode." and episode 5 is currently 211 words. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
That seems a fair middle ground. We just say Hughie extorts Ezekial to get whatatever and leave it be. Plot summaries aren't supposed to be over-detailed anyway. Good suggestion, 109. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Uhm... this is kinda crazy. It's not implied that he has sex with men—it's literally shown. And it's what Hughie uses, again explicitly, to extort him, which is nearly all we know about the character, so it's entirely central to what we know about him and shouldn't remotely be skirted around. Maybe (and I'm not entirely convinced on this front) referring to him as "gay" is problematic but certainly the removal of the notions of outing and him being closeted is inappropriate because those are his primary motivations in his most major interaction in the series. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
In this modern world we live in his sexuality is not the issue, people can be gay and religious too. Hypocrisy is the problem and that leaves him open to extortion. By asserting that the character is gay based on very limited information (the club scene) you are also excluding the possibility the fictional character is bisexual, but as I said before this fictional character is a bad guy (the comic character he's based on is even worse) and we aren't winning anything by being politically correct about what his sexuality might be. -- 109.78.244.23 (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Problem solved (1, 2). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is the "recurring" section limited to 4+ appearances?

I'm a bit confused as to how Translucent doesn't technically make the cut as a recurring character, despite being pretty central early on. Where did this "4+ appearances" come from, exactly? Sock (tock talk) 05:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a general rule of thumb that's used by editors in WP:TV. The relevant section of WP:TVCAST states:

A cast member or character appearing in more than one episode, or in two or more consecutive episodes, does not necessarily mean that character has a "recurring" role. An actor or character may simply have a guest role across several episodes, rather than a recurring story arc throughout the show. If reliable sources cannot adequately distinguish between recurring or guest roles, then local consensus should determine their status.

From my own standpoint, three episodes generally indicates "guest role" and is not enough to be considered "recurring" in most situations. Four episodes is where it becomes debatable... As an aside, the real issue at this article, in my opinion is actually that the 'Guest' section is too "inclusive" and needs to be trimmed back. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:TV and MOS:TV Talk archives, general agreement. — YoungForever(talk) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Would WP:OSE have any effect on this 'rule of thumb'? A rule of thumb, be definition, is an approximation, and not a precise measure. Of course, we want to avoid abuse. But for those characters which have significant dialogue or impact on the plot (like Translucent), I think they should be in there. Also, as Pegg is notable for having been the visual model for (Wee) Hughie in the source material, he should be in there as well.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, Simon Pegg is already Recurring as he appeared in 4 episodes. He isn't part of the main cast though. Do we really want to clutter the Recurring section with cast and characters who only appeared in 1-3 episodes? I don't think so because the list is going to be incredibly long. Translucent can be the only exception as he is a member of the Seven. — YoungForever(talk) 04:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

IMDB

Reverted a good faith edit that added IMDB user scores to the article. IMDB user voted scores are user generated content. User voted web polls are not a reliable source either.

There are some exceptions where we cover these scores, such as when there is a discrepancy between critics and audiences and there is significant coverage ... but there isn't. There was a source but WP:FORBES contributors are not generally considered reliable enough, we would need better sources and more of them. Also since the show got significant other positive reviews and Amazon have claimed great rating for the show there isn't a discrepancy and IMDB scores don't show anything particularly interesting. -- 109.79.84.158 (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Editors might not always know about MOS:TVRECEPTION but they should probably know WP:UGC but they should definitely know WP:RS Reliable Sources.
I don't expect editors to know WP:FORBES and an editor acting in good faith might have thought it was a good enough source to make an exception and include IMDB but one source isn't really substantial coverage. Hopefully this talk page note might discourage others from adding it again, but it's good to have local agreement on the matter too. -- 109.79.176.69 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Actually, WP:FORBES is generally reliable. However, a contributor as in not a staff writer and the content as in the IMDb ratings are not reliable. Regardless of MOS:TVRECEPTION, WP:USERGENERATED, and WP:RS, some editors are definitely going to pull "they are just guidelines, not policies" card and keep on insisting to include user ratings. — YoungForever(talk) 03:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, IMDB votes still not allowed. -- 109.78.197.121 (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Ennis and Robertson

The Boys (comics) was published by Dynamite for almost all of its original run and reprints. For a short time (only six issues) it was published by Wildstorm comics, and at that time Wildstorm was part of DC Comics. Some people claim that because the first issue was published by DC Comics that it is forever in the DC Comics category. I disagree with those claims, but that isn't important to this article about the television show the Boys. Those details are simply irrelevant here, there's no good reason to mention them, and to highlight them in the introduction of the article is undue emphasis WP:UNDUE, which is why I reverted those changes.
More importantly there is no excuse for deleting the creators of the comic Ennis and Robertson. I can understand some people wanting to add the publisher but the creators deserve all due credit and deleting them was not okay. -- 109.76.202.23 (talk) 06:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Are they listed in the opening or closing credits? Because that is what we are using for the tv series. While it was based off the comic books, its a different animal. We need the primary source of the episodes themselves or alternatively, a RS that listes them as the creators. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Season 2 episode titles

The source supposedly listing the names of the episodes for the second season doesn't appear to be in that link. I am going to urge whoever added the titles to find a better source, as I am tempted to remove them as uncited. I will wait approximately one week before purging the entire table. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21,
Since you added the WGA link, you might want to take a look at this discussion. — YoungForever(talk) 15:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
YoungForever, thanks for the ping! (I barely have any articles/talkpages on my watchlist anymore, so cheers.) Jack Sebastian, I've just checked the source, and it does indeed include the titles. There are 8 titles credited between 07/24/2018 and 10/23/2018 (all of Season 1's titles), and 8 titles credited between 07/17/2019 and 11/22/2019 (all of Season 2's titles). What are you seeing in the WGA link? -- /Alex/21 01:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, Alex 21 and YoungForever, I see all of the episodes all mixed in together on the page. My bad. But riddle me this: how are you telling what order the second season episodes are appearing? I am presuming that you were using the date that the writer was noted as having been given credit for them, but I am not seeing a episode order. As anyone who edits tv series articles, not all of the eps are written in the same order they are written. So....was the order assumed from the credit date? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Sebastian: The both (overall and season ) episode numbers are still TBA. — YoungForever(talk) 01:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Jack Sebastian, no order is provided, that's why the table shows TBA in both the number overall and in-season columns. Normally they are ordered by credit date, as seen at Star Trek: Discovery (season 3), with a note included to state so, but the episodic order is still listed as TBA even in that case.
The episodes have apparently been reordered since I added them, so I'm not sure on the who, when and why of that happening, or what the current order is meant to indicate. -- /Alex/21 01:38, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Facism

This article from the Economist might be reading too much into the show but they call it a [critique against Facism.] -- 37.228.193.94 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the IP is talking about this review: “The Boys” is a superhero series for the Trump era, even though the link they provided seems malformed.
I think this might be nice to add to the Critical Response section. What do others think of this idea? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Critical response would do in the short term but I think it would fit better in a Themes section if there were other sources trying to interpret the show in general, more than tv critics reviewing it. -- 109.78.197.121 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Now that the show has introduced Stormfront, a Nazi superhero, I think it would be a good idea to talk about fascism in #Themes.RobotGoggles (talk) 19:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Butcher: A Short Film

On September 10, The Boys released BUTCHER: A Short Film. This takes place in between Seasons 1 and 2, but it was released between S2, episodes 3&4.

First of all, it's only mentioned currently in the Release section, and perhaps this is appropriate, but there is a cast member, plays "Jock", as referred to in the film, who I cannot find a reliable source on for casting to include them anywhere in the article.

In my opinion, this short film should be listed in the #Episodes section, not the Release section, but perhaps this is incorrect. This is why I'm not jumping at the bit to add this here myself.

What should we do with this? RobotGoggles (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not part of the season so, it shouldn't be on the Episodes table. — YoungForever(talk) 22:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It has been added to the episode list as its own release, I think that is the best praxis for this.RobotGoggles (talk) 03:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I noticed that in the promotional material for the short film, it is stylized in all caps, while in the article, we are using convention and leaving it with only the first letter capitalized. Is that a common practice on Wikipedia or should the film be referred to as "BUTCHER" instead of "Butcher"?RobotGoggles (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Rape vs Sexual Assault in relation to The Deep

While the terms "rape" and "sexual assault" are often used interchangeably, in the section regarding The Deep, I believe it is pertinent that we maintain the wording that he "rapes" Starlight. The term is a lot heavier, and it more effectively relates how the show treats the act, since "rape" tends to be the more intense term when compared to "sexual assault".
As the FBI'S definition of rape reads; and as quoted in the Wikipedia article for Rape, rape is: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
The second half of that definition perfectly describes the act as depicted in the show.
The rape is pivotally important in The Deep's Season 2 identity and that's why it's important to keep it in The Deep's character description, but we should call a spade a spade. Rape is rape. RobotGoggles (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Respectfully RobotGoggles, your personal opinion as to appropriate terms or political correctness do not belong in this or any article. We operate off the terms used by the sources. If the sources call it assault, we call it assault. I hope you understand this subtle, yet critical, aspect of editing within Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Out of curiousity, which source in the article uses the term assault over rape? As far as I can tell, The Deep's cast list entry uses no sources, and the source linked in episode one directly uses the term "rape". -- /Alex/21 14:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. The show considers it to be rape, it's rape. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Excuse me, this isn't merely personal opinion. As the sources state, the scene was a rape, and The Deep is a rapist. This isn't me talking. Your patronizing tone needs a HUGE step back. RobotGoggles (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
If the sources - and there should be multiple sources - say rape, then rape it is. If tey call it sexual assault, then sexual assault it is. The way the post in defense of the term was framed, it seemed like it was a personal opinion, and not a sourced one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Church of the Collective - Scientology

In a previous edit of this article, when I was updating the characters bios to reflect their positions in Season 2, I erroneously added that the Church of the Collective was a parody of the Church of Scientology, inspired by articles like this one from comicsbeat.com, which has the same speculation. However, as I looked into this, I found that's just what it is, speculation, since other sources don't go so far as to create a definitive link between the two. As far as I can tell, the creators have not come forward to confirm or deny this theory, and while I think it's highly probable, I do understand that it was wrong of me to add that to the article without further verification. If the creators ever do confirm this, another editor (or me, if I see it first) may add that back into the article. But as it stands now, I think it's inappropriate.RobotGoggles (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I think that way, too. If there were three sources (or a production source) that linked the two, I'd support its addition. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mother's Milk military service

The article says MM was "a medic in the United States Marine Corps". No such job exists, there's no such thing as a medic in the Marines. Anyone who would fill that role is a US Navy Hospital Corpsman (no, the "Corpsman" doesn't refer to the Marine Corps, all Navy HMs are "corpsman"). In the comics MM was a former Army medic, is that his background in the show? Or was just in the Marines? I can't find anything online either way and I don't recall if his military service was explicitly talked about on the show.

This is a fictional series not obligated to follow real world military procedure. MM's bio on the official website states that he was formerly a Marine and a battlefield medic. Bluerules (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Becca's death

If I remember correctly, in the show last episode Stormfront attacks, and even though stabbed in an eye, she stuns Butcher and starts strangling Becca. Then Ryan's eyes start glowing red and whoom!, all fire, smoke and light. Then Butcher's wakes up and sees: 1) Ryans shouting and apparently paralyzed; 2) Stormfront, alive but with all her limbs maimed 3) Becca on the ground, with the severed hand of Stormfront still attached to her neck, strangling her. Butcher runs to the latter, manages to remove the hand, yet Becca dies shortly after. As much as I can remember, there was no sign of burn on Becca's body, and we know that Ryan's, as well as his father's, eyebeams are "heat vision" which cuts by burning and volatilizing. It is not directly shown, yet the most obvious deduction is that Ryan crippled Stormfronts with his laserlike beams, yet his mother died nevertheless because of injuries she previously suffered at the hands of Stormfront, not to mention her hand that continued to strangle Becca even after being amputated. So how comes that, even after at least one other editor an I changed the synopsis writing that Ryan did not manage to save her mother, or something like that, somebody else repeatedly reverted it to something the like of "Ryan accidentally kills Becca"? What is the reason for that? did I miss some hint or anything? 93.65.97.26 (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

You're missing two key elements:
1. Ryan cries over what he did, apologizing and saying he didn't mean it.
2. Becca insists to Butcher that her death wasn't Ryan's fault.
The point here is indirect or not, Ryan did accidentally kill his mother. That is established by his, Becca's, and Butcher's subsequent reaction. It's what makes Butcher forgiving him significant. To top it off, Becca dies from an open neck wound. That would have not been caused by having her throat crushed. It would have been caused by having her skin penetrated - which eye lasers do. Bluerules (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello Bluerules, and thank you for your reply.
Please notice this: those "eye lasers" should cauterize wounds. In fact no drop of blood comes out of Stormfront's stumps. You may be right when you write that Becca (seemingly) died because of blood loss and not of crushed trachea, but that could have more likely been caused by Stormfront suprstrong fingers or nails piercing her skin, could it not?
Yes, Becca says it was not Ryan fault, but could not this be just the plain truth? Ryan feels at fault for that, but he is just a kid and could not have fully understood what had happened. Moreover, he could be just sorry for not having been able to save her mum.
In conclusion I think the authors did not clearly show the dynamics of Becca's death and they deliberately left several possible interpretations of the facts. This article synopsis should reflect that. 93.65.97.86 (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.65.97.86 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
If Stormfront caused the open neck wound, that would have not been intentional when she was trying to strangle Becca. It would have resulted from Ryan's eye lasers striking her, still putting him at fault for Becca's death.
We do not know the extent of what eye lasers should do because it is a fictional concept in a fictional universe. An important factor here is Stormfront took the brunt of the blast, while Becca was hit due to her close proximity, which also ties Ryan to her death.
Ryan witnessed what happened. Why would he be apologizing for anything else when he saw what he did? Why would he be saying he didn't mean it? His action was immediately followed by Becca dying from a neck wound. What Becca said is the truth because what Ryan did wasn't intentional - however, she knows this might not be good enough for Butcher.
The dynamics of Becca's death were not clearly shown because the authors wanted the audience to see the events from Butcher's perspective. It's more impactful for Butcher to slowly realize that Becca was mortally wounded than to immediately see her get hit. But there aren't several possible interpretations of the facts. Ryan accidentally killed Becca, but Butcher spared him. That's Butcher's development - becoming more compassionate - and that's what the article synopsis should reflect. Bluerules (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Bluerules, and thank you again for your reply.
You make some interesting points indeed; however, everything considered, I'd say things don't add up.
You write that "We do not know the extent of what eye lasers should do because it is a fictional concept in a fictional universe" and I certainly agree. Nevertheless the effects of that superpower had been shown many time, and it always was that of heat beams which cut by burning or melting. We had seen them killing normal people and also hitting Stormfront in the famous "laser my tits" scene, and she showed she was able to resist them, at least up to a certain point. In any case, they had never caused explosions.
Well, in Ryan's case laser beams seem to have caused an explosion. I watched this sequence several times and it must have been an explosion to send Butchers unconscious several meters away. Also Stormfront is found at a distance from Becca and the tree. The explosion could have caused Becca's fatal injury, but what did cause the explosion?
Maybe Ryan's eye lasers are different from his father's and have an explosive components. Then again, why they destroyed just Stormfront's arms and legs? I can understand Ryan aiming to the arm with which she was strangling her mother ... but what about the legs?
My impression is that of a story that has not been completely told yet. I would not be surprised if, on season 3, some new facts will be revealed: maybe somebody rigged Stormfront's gloves and boots with micro-explosives?
You wrote "The dynamics of Becca's death were not clearly shown because the authors wanted the audience to see the events from Butcher's perspective". I would rather think they wanted us to hastily reconstruct the facts same as Butcher, and ignore the odd discrepancies as above, in order to be able to come back later and tell again the story with new details.
Finally, as to Butcher becoming more compassionate, I think that is your interpretation. My impression is he is confused, and events happen so fast he cannot control them at all. When he faces the kid he may hate him for what he supposedly had done to Becca, and we know he thinks no supe should exist because too dangerous; however he could also be a bit rational and understand his crowbar has little possibilities to perform better on the boy than it did on Stormfront. Then Homelander arrives, then Queen Mave, and Butcher follows the obvious path Maeve offered him to exit this situation. No guarantee he really forgave Ryan. 93.65.97.86 (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
We have not seen the full extent of eye lasers, especially in comparison to a user in control of his powers (Homelander) against a user unleashing them for the first time (Ryan). Because this is a fictional universe utilizing fictional abilities, it is impossible to say what they cannot do.
The explosion was caused by Ryan. His eyes light up and the explosion follows. There was nothing else to cause it - if Ryan did nothing while Stomfront strangled Becca, Becca would have been strangled to death without an explosion.
Ryan was simply aiming at Stormfront. Since this is a fictional series, it is impossible to determine exactly why Stormfront was injured that way. However, since Ryan was aiming at Stormfront, it makes sense that she took the brunt of the damage. That's what happened.
There isn't more story to tell. If there was, there would have been something to support alternate interpretations and there wasn't. Anything else would be a retcon over the established events.
It is more dramatic for Butcher (and the audience) to slowly realize that Becca died instead of seeing it right away. That allows for a dramatic build-up and revelation - Ryan accidentally killing Becca is most effective in this manner. "Odd discrepancies" cannot be proven when this series remains a work of fiction where such discrepancies can simply be unintentional continuity errors/plot holes. Plus, this was a call-back to the season 1 finale where Butcher again wakes up after an explosion and joins the audience in slowly realizing an important reveal, in this case, Becca being alive. The dramatic and symbolic intent aligns with Ryan accidentally killing Becca. Any "odd discrepancies" lack supporting evidence with what the show set up.
This is not an interpretation towards Butcher being more compassionate. It's been shown throughout the entire season, starting with him saving Hughie at the expense of Kenji escaping (and subsequently being killed). Butcher has sufficient time to kill Ryan, amid Becca needing to emphasize that Ryan wasn't at fault and trying to prevent Butcher from killing him. Butcher isn't quite so rational when he previously attempted to take on Translucent with his crowbar and tried to blow himself up in front of Homelander, even though it would have no effect on Homelander. He would have tried something out of emotion, as he was just previously trying to stop Stormfront with no effect. But the real guarantee is he didn't try anything after Homelander and Maeve were gone; when he already exited the situation. Instead, he opted to have the CIA take care of Ryan. That proves Butcher forgave him - and it's more significant when Ryan accidentally killed Becca. Bluerules (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Apart from all of that Sherlocking, what do the sources say about how Becca dies? Because in the final analysis, even if they are wrong, the sources are going to be the only thing that goes into the article. If we are focusing on only the Plot Summary (being the only thing exempt from citation), then a universal consensus on what happened in the plot is required. If we don;t have that, we say the Becca dies and let the reader determine for themselves what happens. This article is not mean to replace the episode, but to instead crushingly and concisely condense it. No agreement means no inclusion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Forgive me if this has already been posted, but Eric Kripke confirmed it in an interview.
[3] - "Because she– Because Butcher would be– the show would be over. Butcher would just be stable and good and way too functional. So, you know, she– unfortunately, she had to die." Bluerules (talk) 01:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Jack Sebastian, thank you for your input. Well, I need to admit that many (probably most) of the sources "side" with Bluerules and explicitely state that Ryan accidentally killed his mother: here, for instance: https://www.radiotimes.com/news/on-demand/2020-10-09/the-boys-becca-butcher-twist/, and here https://hiddenremote.com/2020/10/11/the-boys-season-2-finale-moments/
Other ones use a more careful wording, for example https://www.vulture.com/article/the-boys-season-2-finale-recap-episode-8-what-i-know.html
Finally, at least one, reads "Becca found herself strangled to death by Stormfront. Becca’s son Ryan did end up getting revenge, but it was too little, too late for his mother." https://cartermatt.com/418094/is-aya-cash-leaving-the-boys-did-stormfront-die-on-season-2-finale/
Accordingly, I would like a "possibilist" wording, stating that Becca died because of wounds maybe accidentally inflicted by his son, maybe willingly inflicted by Stormfront, or maybe both. 93.65.97.104 (talk) 10:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey there, Anon93. I agree that there appears to be a difference of opinion where Becca's dealer of death (unintentional or otherwise) comes from. I haven't seen the episode yet (don't worry about spoiling it for me; I can only watch those sorts of shows after the wee ones have gone to bed, so I can't expect others to abide by those same rules), so my question was initially about what the sources said.
When there is a discrepancy between sources, it becomes more important to weigh the comparative value of the reliable sources. That may seem like a difficult task, but it is worth it, because in the slow trudge towards GA and FA status, these sourves are going to be weighed anyway. There is no downside to finding sources that will define a consensus amongst the editors that will endure. Crap sources or barely reliable sources do not meet that litmus test.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Well, AFAIK all the sources I mentioned are similar in quality and nature, all web magazines focusing on TV shows. Problem is the scene that is ambiguous and open to different interpretations.
Here two more: https://www.nme.com/tv-recaps/the-boys-finale-season-2-episode-8-recap-2776760, according to which "Unfortunately, Ryan wounds his mum in the process of dispatching Stormfront and Becca dies, making Butcher promise to keep her kid safe." and this other one https://meaww.com/the-boys-season-2-episode-8-homelander-makes-it-to-the-end-not-everyone-does-nazi-bitch-stormfront-490101 , which states "Sure, Becca is killed by Stormfront and the racist supe is in turn smoked by Becca's son Ryan who also abandons his father Homelander for the evil and cruel man that he has turned out to be." 93.65.97.104 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
I am really glad you are contributing to the discussion, Anon93; you'd be surprised how many anonymous contributors come to an article, make a contentious edit and then melt into the background. That you are here shows you are a conscientious editor (and you should consider registering with a name account, so you can edit amongst with a bit more of a rep-building intent). If you need any advice or assistance in this regards, hit me up on the talk page; I'd be happy to help.
With regards to your additional sources, what I was originally talking about was not an abundance of sources, but instead about a certain quality of sources. For example, if Patrick Stewart states in the official Picard series blog that a certain former cast member is going to appear, do you think it has more weight or less weight than a source offering a season 2 opinion as to the likelihood of a different cast member showing up? If your answer was either 'the first one' or 'it depends,' you are looking at weighing sources the right way.
Another example would be for the so-so Batman-themed series Gotham. Cameron Monaghan's inspited portrayal of Jerome Valeska became a longterm back and forth 'is he the Joker or not?' hinged upon the reliability and strength of the sources. Fortunately, the Sherlocking was capped and we just waited until we had solid and reputable ()and of course, reliable) sourcing noting that he was. (A side note: the series was meh, but Monaghan's portrayal was very, very good). The point of this example is that we are not in a hurry. We are not on a deadline, and there is absolutely no pressure to rush out an inaccurate article. We aren't part of the FanSquishy armchair detectives. We can wait, and make a better article.
I know I rambled a bit, but I hope you are able to glean something of use from that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Review bombing statements

I've recently undone comments regarding review bombing being moved from 'critical reception' to 'audience viewership.' The citation was specifically referring to criticism arising Amazon's gradual release of season two's episodes, and had little if any relationship to viewership.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Stormfront's white supremacy, Nazism, etc.

I've recently been made aware that there are folk who might take exception to my edits regarding noting Stormfront's actions as white supremacy, bigotry and racism. While Nazism covers most of that, I found it compelling that most of the sources (I used just one) to clarify that they explicitly note Stormfront as a racist, a bigot, a white supremacist and a nazi (and no, I won't be capitalizing them). The source from which I found the explicit wording was an interview with the actor themselves.
The comparisons/references to RW groups, such as the actual White power website named "Stormfront", the Proud Boys and basic Trumpery was all over those (quite reliable) sources. And I get it; it is a politically-charged world out there, and the series' creators - like Ennis did with the comics - tapped into these RW events and themes to use them in the story-telling process. I think that simply noting what the sources say will help us sidestep a lot of that partisanship and hyper-polarization in this article. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I find supremacist to be the most accurate description of Stormfront. It's true that her views are bigoted, but being bigoted is simply being intolerant. Stormfront, in keeping with her Nazi heritage, believes in supremacy. She believes herself to be superior to those who aren't white and those who don't have superpowers, hence why her viewpoints are supremacist. Bluerules (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I appreciate that viewpoint, @Bluerules:. That said, it isn't supported by the sources. She is a nazi, so her superiority is not just some generic quality, but a very specific view of what/who she feels superior to. She doesn't feel superior to Homelander but definitely to A-Train. Every single source marks the character as a racist, a bigot and almost all of them explicitly note her nazi past. I feel we have to follow the sources. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Supremacy isn't about individual superiority, but group superiority. Hitler didn't believe he alone was superior to everyone else, but that the master race in Germany was superior. In Stormfront's case, she believes the white superpowered are the "master race", which Homelander is part of. This is supported by creator Eric Kripke saying he "wanted to set (his) target on white supremacy" with Stormfront. While there may be other interpretations of the character, this is the show's creator establishing that Stormfront depicts supremacy above simple racism and bigotry. Kripke has the best understanding of Stormfront because he is in charge of the show's creative direction and he controls her character. With Stormfront, he has confirmed she is a supremacist. Bluerules (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I am hearing everything that you are saying, but again, we don't get to write what you and I reason out. We write what the sources are saying and, in this case, they are stating matters explicitly. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The source quoting Kripke explicitly states that Stormfront is commentary on supremacy. Other sources also say Stormfront is a supremacist, but when the show's creator establishes this, it establishes her depiction from the people depicting her and that is the depiction of a supremacist. Bluerules (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, I am sorry; you are hinging your entire argument upon the idea that that character is all about supremacism in every form, and that is not borne out by RS. You are further focusing on her supers-supremacy which is not emphasized nearly as much in RS as her hatred of all things Not White.
Practically every source does identify the supremacy of being categorized as white supremacy or the whole Aryan supremacy espoused by the nazis (a term which is explicitly dropped in several of the references).
If you consider this an impasse, please feel free to initiate an RfC, so as to get some eyes on the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
A white supremacist is a supremacist. To call Stormfront a supremacist is not saying she is all about supremacism in every form, but she is simply a supremacist. It's the same as simply calling her a "bigot", which indicates she simply holds bigoted views, not bigoted views towards everyone else. The "supremacist" description identifies a key personality trait of hers; it does not limit who her views apply to, nor indicate that it applies to everyone else. It avoids contention over the extent of her beliefs and maintains an encyclopedic tone.
As an encyclopedia, the wording must be as concise as possible. We have to avoid using unnecessary words. When I expanded the premise to reflect the entire series, that was my intent. Calling Stormfront a "supremacist" is just as accurate as calling her a "pro-Supe white supremacist". But the former is far more concise. The latter is awkwardly worded, especially when the descriptions of the other Seven members are just one word. They should have only one word describing them to maintain the encyclopedic tone.
No matter how Stormfront's supremacy is interpreted, the sources agree she is a supremacist and it is simply more encyclopedic to refer to her as such. Bluerules (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Again, you are misapprehending both the explicit and implied definition of the word 'concise.'
The sources do not define Stormfront as a 'supremacist.' They explicitly define her as a white supremacist. If you require me to enumerate the sources that do so here, I can do that. The cherry atop that particular crush of sources would be the one that explicitly states:


"The correlation between the character name and the The character’s name, incidentally, comes from a white supremacist, neo-Nazi and Holocaust-denying website called Stormfront founded in 1996"1


Concise means to 'give a lot of information clearly and in a few words'. Supremacist, all by itself does not convey what Stormfront is. You clearly disagree. As I believe we have both stated our positions quite clearly, you might want to go ahead and file that RfC. Personally, I don't think this is the hill you should choose to die on, but that's just me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
This is a complete "tomayto/tomahto" issue - again, a white supremacist is a supremacist.
If the character is defined as a white supremacist, then she is a supremacist. If she believes a group is superior to others - which she does - she is a supremacist. If the sources say she is a white supremacist, then she is a supremacist. To argue against a white supremacist being a supremacist would be like arguing a strong safety isn't a safety. A strong safety is a type of safety, but still a safety, just as a white supremacist is a supremacist.
If the sources were contesting her being a supremacist, that would be another issue, but they're not. They do define her as a supremacist because a white supremacist is a supremacist. They explicitly define her as a supremacist because a white supremacist is a supremacist. Calling Stormfront a supremacist is not at odds with the sources; it is supported by the sources.
Supremacist conveys what Stormfront is in less words. She views others as inferior. That's the core of her character in the most basic terms, which is reflected in the synopsis - the most general information about the story and characters. Further elaboration is provided in the cast section, which allows for such elaboration, and identifies the details of her supremacy. And if there's ever a page for the TV character - which I believe should be created, split from the comic characters article - there can be even more detail. This is a non-issue when the article already conveys that Stormfront is a white supremacist, adding the further detail when appropriate. Bluerules (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand your argument, @Bluerules:; I understood it from the get-go; I am saying that I disagree with it. The hutus believe themselves superior to the tutsi(a), as do the Turks to the Armenians{b} and the Serbs to Muslims(c), but theirs isn't a white supremacy. They - as well as white supremacy - are subsets of supremacy. Using the term 'surpemacist' to describe someone is too vague. We call a duck a duck here, especially when we have explicit citation affording us the clarification.

You have not altered my viewpoint on this matter, Bluerules. If you want to maintain your viewpoint on this, then file an RfC and let the chips fall where they may. Build a consensus for your view; I'll follow it if you can build it. Otherwise, back down. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

The premise section that I largely wrote describes A-Train as "drug-addicted". There are many different forms of substance abuse, but they're not the same substance he abuses. They're subsets of drug addiction. Yet, it's still drug addition, just as white supremacy is supremacy. So why is "supremacist" too vague, but "drug-addicted" isn't? Why is it necessary to cite Stormfront's form of supremacy, but not A-Train's form of addiction? Although the drug that A-Train takes is fictional, his addiction falls under real world PED abuse. It's not necessary to specify Stormfront's form of supremacy for the same reason A-Train's form of addition isn't specified; the core trait of the character is established and this a section that outlines basics. Stormfront, at her core, believes in supremacism, and A-Train, at his core, is drug addicted. A duck crossing doesn't specify that it's used by mallard ducks.
The article already specifies where Stormfront's supremacist views lie further down, as it should. What's the necessity of having this detail further up, especially when it conflicts with the paragraph format? Is not malevolent enough for the character that Stormfront holds supremacist views, that she views other groups as inferior? And since the article specifies that her form of supremacy is white supremacy where it's most appropriate, I don't see why this is an issue. I could understand the problem if there was zero mention of where Stormfront's supremacy lay, but there's only one segment that focuses on her general supremacy. This is a talk page for all editors of this article and if any others wish to voice their stance on the article to build a consensus, they may do so here. Bluerules (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You know what would also bring a lot of editors to this discussion? An RfC. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I have offered a compromise - refer to Stormfront as a supremacist (which is accurate) on first reference and elaborate in the subsequent paragraphs that her supremacism for whites. It grants both of what we are seeking in this article. If there is disagreement, it is best to have the insight of the editors here who regularly edit this article and are most concerned with its status. Bluerules (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I apologize, @Blurules:; if simply boxing the character as a 'supremacist,' what was your original position? When you do not move from your initial position, it is not a compromise; its a simple statement of your opinion.
Do you know what isn't an opinion? A statement supported by numerous reliable sources, like what I have been saying from the outset of this conversation. I am not sure why you are choosing to defend what appears to me an indefensible position, but unless you are willing to bring in additional eyes with an RfC, maybe you should go find another argument to have. As Obi-Wan said to Anakin, 'I have the high ground here.' - Jack Sebastian (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Incorrect - your entire position is based on a stubborn refusal to acknowledge that a white supremacist is a supremacist. As Obi-Wan said to Anakin, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
If the sources are saying that Stormfront is a white supremacist, then they are saying she is a supremacist. The statement from the sources is she's a supremacist. This isn't like a source referring to an animal as a whale shark and removing "shark" would change the species. A white supremacist is a supremacist. Calling Stormfront a supremacist is not an opinion; it is 110% fact and supported by the sources. It is a more concise way of describing the character at the onset and in the premise section especially, brevity is key.
I was under the impression that you simply wanted reference to specifying Stormfront as a white supremacist. The compromise was to elaborate on Stormfront's supremacy on subsequent reference and specify that it's white supremacy, just as A-Train's drug addiction is specified as Compound-V on subsequent reference. Rather, it seems you want the page to specifically say "white supremacist" on every single reference. And why? To politicize this page by condemning white supremacists on every single reference to Stormfront? There's this strange need to have "supremacist" followed by "white", despite the fact that, again, a white supremacist is a supremacist. This is despite the fact that even I believe there should be reference to having Stormfront being a white supremacist, just not on every single reference. We don't have the article calling A-Train a "Compound-V addict" on every single reference for brevity and to avoid repetition.
It's unfortunate this became ugly because I've come to respect your contributions and your editing style has inspired mine. We have more pressing matters for this subject, such as creating a separate page for the TV versions of these characters. I don't believe something this minor warrants outside inference; I would rather we take the approach that makes the article concise when necessary and more specific when necessary. This absolutely should not be a big deal, especially when my recommendation still has "white supremacist" reference. Bluerules (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Dvd / blu ray release?

Should we mention blu ray or dvd release? I am not sure magazine by the store JB hi-fi is a reliable source or not but seem it is notable to mention it. Also my disc seems under Sony label instead of Amazon. Apparently Sony is the distributor in Aus. 49.196.24.144 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Follow up. Are these reliable sources/citations to prove that Sony is also the distributor ?
https://www.flickeringmyth.com/2020/04/the-boys-season-1-blu-ray-and-dvd-details-revealed/
https://blazingminds.co.uk/the-boys-coming-blu-ray-dvd-may/
Matthew hk (talk) 15:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Recurring Cast Episode Count

So far we've said that everyone who appears in 4+ episodes per season is considered recurring, while 3 episodes or fewer is guest. Right now that's not the case though. There's multiple actors who appeared in 3 episodes of a season with some of them listed as recurring (Malcolm Barrett, Ann Cusack, Jordana Lajoie and Shantel VanSanten in season 1) and others listed as guest (e.g. Alex Hassell, Shawn Ashmore, Mishka Thébaud and others). That's not really consistent, so I'll either correct those "false recurring" actors or I'd rather suggest to put recurring at 3+ episodes since there are only eight episodes a season. Appearing in three out of eight episodes is quite a lot and not really comparable to shows with around 20 episodes where 3 eps would be guest. Especially actors like Shawn Ashmore had quite a big role despite only appearing in 3 episodes. Thoughts? IronMaximus (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

It really sounds like a WP:OR on setting the number to 4 or other number. Matthew hk (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Article episodes

Hi besides of the season articles, I would like to begin with episodes articles. I think it's time to give the series it's own episode articles. I'm gonna try to go deeper to improve the season articles, but I would go deeper for the article episodes. I would also like to start with episodes articles from other Prime Video series. I think it would be easier than Netflix shows considering that the episodes are released weekly. Just hope we can come to an agreement and I would start to create the articles immediately.Ulises1126 (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Episode articles most definitely fail WP:GNG, please see WP:NTVEP. — YoungForever(talk) 09:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Split the page into seasons

I have begin to work in season drafts of the series. They still need improvements but I thinks that the show is very important with enough information to do so. But I don’t know very well the baseline is for splitting pages. Ulises1126 (talk) 6:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:TVSPLIT before you think about proceeding. There would need to be 50 to 60 episodes before splitting to even a "list of episodes" page would be appropriate. So far there are only 16. Separate season articles require a higher bar, more like 70 to 80. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys. I thinks it's time to talk about the independent seasons articles of the series. Ulises1126 (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the quality of the drafts, I would approve of them being moved to the mainspace, and the parent article being updated accordingly. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not about quality: it's about whether there is enough content to meet WP:SPLIT and MOS:TVSPLIT, which there is not. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
While I agree that the article does not have enough content to warrant splits yet, I would say the drafts are still worth editing. After all, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. — Painting17 (talk) 15:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm gonna start to improve the drafts then. Ulises1126 (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 17 January 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The Boys (2019 TV series) → The Boys (TV series) – WP:INCDAB states that In individual cases consensus may determine that a parenthetically disambiguated title that is still ambiguous has a primary topic, but the threshold for identifying a primary topic for such titles is higher than for a title without parenthetical disambiguation. I believe that this threshold is in this case easily met. The 2019 series is a critically acclaimed hit series, whereas The Boys (1993 TV series) is an obscure sitcom cancelled after 5 episodes which had no lasting cultural impact; sufficiently obscure that one of the first results when searching for it is a website called TV Obscurities. Yes, the 2019 series is ongoing so there is certainly some recency bias, but pageviews show that even at its lowest offseason pageviews dip it dominates with roughly a 1000:1 ratio. There is no chance that the 1993 series could ever come close to the 2019 series' popularity or significance, even long after the latter series ends. Lennart97 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC) Lennart97 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vought Cinematic Universe

I posted a question about the legitimacy of the name "Vought Cinematic Universe" at Talk:The Boys (franchise), and I would appreciate it if someone responds there. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Boys_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1130646687"