Talk:Velma (TV series)/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023
Please add after "Mixed" in the lead and "Reception" sections "to mostly negative" as most reviews so far are negative. Justanotheruser23 (talk) 02:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: - Claim doesn't align with aggregate sources.  Skipple  ☎  02:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Audience response to the series
So, since my issue kind of got lost in the previous heated discussion, I would like to open this up separately. The following sources discuss audience ratings and /or responses and are either valid according to WP:RSP or not listed on there to be excluded on wikipedia. To avoid further conflicts in editing, please state here if you disagree to cover this.

Yahoo! News

Fox News

PinkNews

Comic Book Resources

Dlisted

FandomWire

Now Toronto

MovieWeb Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Dlisted is not a reliable source because is a celebrity gossip website. FYI, gossip websites are not reliable sources. FandomWire is a questionable source. As for the rest of the sources, they can be use to talk about audience ratings/scores/responses as they are reliable sources. — Young Forever (talk)   16:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, someone already started with other sources and I extended it. I will not use the non-reliable and questionable ones. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023
Change the Rotten Tomatoes score to 47%, which is where the critic score is currently listed as Germaniclad2464 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done Khrincan  ( talk ) 21:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Civility is required

 * I have removed a number of comments from this talk page which were off-topic, personal opinions about the subject, or clear personal attacks and harassment. Editors on this page will treat each other with respect and civility, a policy and requirement of editing on this site. Comment on the content of the article, not on the political or other motivations of other editors or moderators. Anyone failing to do so will be blocked from editing. There will be no further warnings. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews is laughable
The only critics who are giving this positive Reviews are those who are trading favors.

If you're going to include the 55% critic score from Rotten Tomotoes you should also include the 7% user score. As the average user does not have to trade favors for access and party invitations (as critics must) this is the appropriate metric.

Why not include both scores? Why only use the score which can be rigged by publicists?

I would add the user score myself but 2600:1002:B008:C3E7:7CB2:8826:C527:E3A6 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:950:31D0:F806:694C:DF8E:F4F5 (talk) 01:49, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is possible to include the audience scores, but only if these are discussed by reliable sources. I did a quick google research and found the following from: Comic Book Resources, Yahoo! News,Fox News . These sources should be sufficient per WP:RSP, but I personally would wait a little longer to get more sources talking about it. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC. Per MOS:TVRECEPTION, Be careful when searching for reviews, and make sure they are coming from professional reviewers, and not simply a fan of the series. Per WP:UGC, Although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic) may be reliable when summarizing experts, the ratings and opinions of their users are not. — Young Forever (talk)   22:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You know good and well that . This is one of the worst received shows of all time (in the opinion of actual people) but this article will never talk about it because . TheDethklokGuy (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, Wikipedia have rules and guidelines. It is inappropriate to add your personal opinion. — Young Forever (talk)   21:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The stated sources are fine though. Also, when looking at for example The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, audience scores can be included in an audience response section. I still do not mind to wait for more coverage, which will most likely follow anyways. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power is different though, the audience responses were talked about by reliable sources. was talking audience ratings and opinions directly from users. They are two different things, the latter is not acceptable. —  Young Forever (talk)   22:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Of course, JUST putting in audience ratings sourced from RT, Imdb etc. is not correct. As you can see in my first answer to this, I actually looked up some reliable sources that are not excluded per WP:RSP that could be used to cover this topic, which I was referring to. I maybe should have opened another discussion. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple IP addresses were repeatedly adding audience ratings directly from users before the article became semi-page protected. — Young Forever (talk)   23:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And god forbid we cite the audience scores from the most prominent media review aggregator. Vandalism is bad, vandalism should be removed, but this trend of overzealous moderators protecting or semi-protecting pages because a large amount of Wikipedia volunteers are adding maybe the most critical element of critical reception is worrying. It's an already brief article about a piece of media that has been widely panned, which according to what seems to be a growing sentiment amongst certain volunteers -- is not relevant context for any potentially unwitting readers. As an unwitting contributor myself, who is only even aware of this show because of this talk page, I can't help but feel the behaviour of certain Wikipedia admins has demonstrated more than a desire to prevent "disruptive editing". I don't have a dog in this race, but I see dispute resolution in the near future for this article in particular. 2600:8800:118:6D00:7922:61E8:E025:B2F2 (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please view the multiple discussions raised on the topic. No consensus has been formed to allow this article to differ from Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by including such content. MOS:TVRECEPTION and WP:UGC exist for a reason. — Young Forever (talk)   06:25, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to go with YoungForever on this. Audience scores, especially for particularly controversial shows such as this, tend to be potentially unreliable and subject to review bombing. That said, I don't think the 55% indicates bias in favor of the show. As I recall from my education, a grade margin ranging in the 50s is a failing one. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 85.148.213.144 (talk) 10:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is inappropriate. Please see WP:BATTLE. — Young Forever (talk)   17:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:957:4849:F295:6F4 (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, WP:BATTLE. Also, no personal attacks. You are beating a deadhorse with your baseless accusations of political agenda. No one is talking about politics except you. This is not the place to talk about politics, please see WP:NOTADVOCACY, WP:NOTFREESPEECH, and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. — Young Forever (talk)   19:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * How is pointing out you violating wikipedia policies a personal attack? Trust me you dont want to have your first block over this for edit warring so you need to stop. 2601:3C5:8200:97E0:14DE:AC96:5C20:4B43 (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not violating Wikipedia policies. That is you as you continue to push your political agenda. Keep in mind that sockpuppetry can get you block. There is no edit warring that you claimed there is, enough with your clearly false claims. — Young Forever (talk)   23:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Look, there's no way a show like this gets "mixed" reviews. To the average person who doesn't have a dog in the race, this show has received nothing but overwhelming criticism. On RT, Velma has a 52% average from 23 critic reviews. 23. And these critics are supposedly reliable, yet it's been demonstrated that critics on RT tend to review progressive content more favourably than the audience. Only in 2023 can we base an average score on 23 cherry-picked, "reliable" critics, and yet ignore the 6500+ users ratings on RT, the 4000+ user reviews on Google, and the 28k+ votes on IMDb which all say this show is awful. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Medium is not even a reliable source, please see WP:MEDIUM. Your claimed of me being political bias are complete baseless. I never talked about politics on this entire discussion. — Young Forever (talk)   03:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't prescribe to the reliable sources policy. The policy is inherently flawed for the aforementioned reasons. 92.22.86.3 (talk) 03:50, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely inappropriate of you to talk about politics on here as this article has nothing to do with politics. You are only talking about politics because you choose to not abide by Wikipedia guidelines, rules, and policies. — Young Forever (talk)   04:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 92.22.86.3 (talk) 04:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely irrelevant. You are clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. If you are going to continue you with your ridiculous manifesto, I am done here. As multiple editors said, audience responses/scores/ratings are allow only when they are discussed by reliable sources. See The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power as an example. — Young Forever (talk)   05:19, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the discrepancy between audience and critic scores could be addressed akin to how it's handled on Sonic Frontiers, although in the other direction (critics are mixed, audiences are positive). I don't think review bombing is at play though, given that similar sentiments can be found online by many different people for reasons related to the work's content. (I have never seen nor have an opinion on Velma.) -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 00:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only if they are discussed by reliable sources, not by users themselves. — Young Forever (talk)   00:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * When some progressive media criticise this progressive show then we can add some criticism to this article chuds. I guess it's not gonna happen. And even if it happens, we will just update list of "reliable sources". Cheers Mintus590 (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The Washington Post, NY Times, Politico, etc. have been caught conspiring not to cover stories which undermine the Democrat Party (e.g. Jeremiah Wright). In so doing, they prevent there from being any reliable sources that can be cited on Wikipedia.
 * 2600:1002:B019:D4E5:FC58:AC97:946A:4CD2 (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NYPOST which have multiple discussions links that resulted that it is not a reliable source. — Young Forever (talk)   01:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 2600:1002:B019:4F33:71E1:E902:AAE0:494B (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not care who you are. You cannot dox editors on Wikipedia, please see WP:DOX. — Young Forever (talk)   18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not care who you are. You cannot dox editors on Wikipedia, please see WP:DOX. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   18:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe change “mixed” reviews to “negative to mixed” or something like that
As many have seen my recent edit, RT just lowered the critic rating from 52% to 47%, and is currently standing at 45% and will probably continue to go down the drain. So I’m suggesting to change mixed to mixed to negative or something like that. Wolfquack (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC) Wolfquack (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in an edit summary, any reception summaries should be attributed to a source that we have included (so in the most common case for television shows, Metacritic, which always gives an outline). This should not be changed unless Metacritc does. Also, "negative-to-mixed/""mixed-to-negative" doesn't make sense, because mixed reviews would include negative reviews. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Wikibenboy94 Ah I see, sorry I didn’t know that the “mixed” part came from Metacritic. I’m such a moron. Wolfquack (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Seperate 'Controversies' Section
The amount of controversy this show has been the center of might well warrant its own section. There has been, for instance, a lot of accusations of racism both by and against the show creators. 188.26.215.228 (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to provide reliable sources for your claims. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does Velma have audience response but Woman King does not?
Why does Velma have a audience response but Woman King does not? Whenever someone tried to update that article, it was removed because only critical response is permitted. Why is Wikipedia so inconsistent in how it enforces it's arbitrary rules? 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:20A6:7C03:F8BE:D66C (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Velma has an audience response section. It is currently being worked on but still needs more reliable sources to be extended further. Once it features enough coverage, it can also be included in the lead. Also, the inconsistency you mention may occur if there are either no reliable sources available or simply no one has free time available to work it out (or no one is interested in doing it). Vestigium Leonis (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems strange that normies absolutely hate the show while professional critics, give it positive reviews. What explanation is there for this discrepancy other than
 * 2600:1002:B019:D4E5:FC58:AC97:946A:4CD2 (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, your conspiracy theories are inappropriate as they have nothing do to with improving the article. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   01:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You calling me a conspiracy theorist also does nothing to improve this article :D
 * It is not a theory.
 * 2600:1002:B019:4F33:71E1:E902:AAE0:494B (talk) 14:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your assumptions and conspiracies (you did not provide anything to validate your claims) are not helpful to improve the article. I would suggest to move this discussion to either of your talk pages. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually what they are are claiming are inappropriate on Wikipedia as I said repeatedly. It is considered to be harassment right now. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   15:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually what they are are claiming are inappropriate on Wikipedia as I said repeatedly. It is considered to be harassment right now. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   15:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I really wish there was consistency so contributors like the above did not feel disenfranchised because of the far left nature of Wikipedia. But that's just wishful thinking until Elon buys the site (I know I know, it's not for sale). 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:64E2:F28C:A6A3:B5FC (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read what admin said two sections below this section. Also, please read WP:NOTVOTE. —  Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   02:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, nothing I said was disrespectful or off topic. Not sure what point you're trying to make telling me to read what Ivanvector posted when I literally only posted that equity is needed in permitting content so as to not disenfranchise people like the above. Fact that Velma allows audience criticism because it involves something that's accepted by the left while audience criticism on Woman King was not accepted because the audience had an issue with the movie glorifying people who committed slavery is simply another example of wikipedia being far left biased. The only way this will ever change is if people bring it up in a hope of turning the wiki back toward center or if Elon buys the platform. Stay young my friend. Also, the audience reception is silly. Everyone knows that most of the low ratings from the audience came from how hateful the show is toward whites and especially males. Even if every single south asian female who watched the show rated it as insulting, the demographics would not show in average rating (asians being 6% of US population as a whole, obviously a fraction when it comes to south asian females, while white males being 35% will crash a show that tell them they have small phallus), as if being white means the phallus is disproportionally small or that being male, you're reduced to the size of the phallus. So that entire section, as it is currently written, is just misrepresenting where the criticism comes from. That's just facts. 2600:1700:1B00:15FF:B44B:F9D7:AEDE:8B7B (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly calling Wikipedia editors as far left is considered to be a personal attack. Your personal opinion is irrelevant here. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   21:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This whole discussion is not helping anyone which is why we should just end it here and close it. If the above person (not YoungForever) wants to add something to the article, it is possible to open a new entry while providing reliable resources. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The negative audience reception is notable enough for the lede
I was told that including audience reception in the lede should have a consensus on the talk page first. Given a look at the subsection, which has 9 reliable sources talking about its negative audience reception, as well as a basic google search (the single positive review even constantly brings up the hatred this show gets, albeit its author blindly bashing the criticism) it's clear that multiple reliable sources love discussing the hatred this show gets as much as the sources' subjects love hating it. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree on this, the sources we currently have available in the article are sufficient. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There's actually seven sources; two have just been used more than once, and even then some are marginally reliable at best, or otherwise don't appear at WP:RSP. What appears on Google's results is irrelevant as any equal amount of "multiple reliable sources discussing the backlash" to the backlash (which, frankly, isn't true) needs to be verified with reliable sources, a lot of which that appear in the results aren't. The reporting on it certainly peaked shortly after the arrival of the show, so it's very unlikely more reliable sources are going to weigh in now, and significantly enough that the subsection can be expanded upon which would increase the chances of it warranting a mention in the lead. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here are some more I found within 30 seconds that were more recent also: NBCnews, MovieWeb, AWN. The reporting certainly did not peak yet. I am pretty sure there is more from sources that are also reliable. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 15:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * NBC News is listed at WP:RSP but the other two aren't, so it is unlikely they are going to be considered acceptable (I believe Movieweb was included at one point but was replaced with a better source). If sources are found they should be checked against WP:RSP (others can be found at WP:VG/S in case the source is primarily a gaming-related website). I've also found an article from Wired from the past week which is suitable.
 * The thing is, it seems that many of these articles do little more than simply outline the backlash and repeat many of the same talking points, rather than providing a rebuttal or analysis to the responses. If this persists, then ultimately the section is going to be relegated to a single paragraph. Wikibenboy94 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

"Early and final designs for the main characters" in Production sources back to unverified Twitter account
I just followed the path backwards to figure out where this image came from. It looks legit if you just go to the image's info page and look at the summary, but if you follow it, the actual "concept art" is simply from a non-verified Twitter account. Thus, its veracity, significance, and copyright status is questionable. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide what to do, as I'm not investing the effort in figuring out the policies on this, but I would assume, as is, it is not suitable for inclusion (even though it looks nice). Peace and Passion &#9774; ''("I'm listening....") 08:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * From what I gather, it is not official concept art. Per the artist: "I didn't work on Velma but did some VERY early concepts for it a couple years ago. Likely super exploratory phase -- they went in a different direction. Dunno if I can share the actual designs but I always really liked the silhouettes I landed on so have a look at these blobs". (emphasis mine)  It should be removed.  Mike   Allen   14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be removed, but because it fails the non-free content criteria. Specifically it fails WP:NFCC and WP:NFCC: the image of one artist's early concept art for the characters which ultimately wasn't used in the show does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and at so early a stage in the show's development this is not much different from fan art, which fails WP:TRIVIA. If we wouldn't discuss in the article text how this early concept contributed to the final art (which I don't think we should) then there's no reason to display a non-free image of it. I'll wait for more opinions before removing it though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with all the above, but don't want to be BOLD and remove it, lest I irritate regular editors of this article. I do not believe the CBR citation as is now in place is sufficient to establish that it warrants inclusion. I also agree with the argument that it does not substantially contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic (as well as that it is akin to fan art). That is all. Peace and Passion &#9774; ("I'm listening....") 04:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I concur to remove it as it is from an unverified Twitter account and fails WP:NFCC. — Young Forever <sup style="color: #2D68C4F">(talk)   05:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)