Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 1

Released July 2015?
Where is the reference for "Original release date July 12, 2015"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkamoy (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

New Section that might become necessary: Comparisons/Contrasts vs. Original Movie?
I am noticing that a lot of the reviews coming out about Episode 1 are talking about the differences between the tv series and the Michael Crichton film it is re-imagining. For example, (spoiler alert) in the very first episode we meet Ed Harris's character and we assume that he is this show's version of Yul Brenner's character from the film: a robot who is rebelling against his role. In this version, however, Ed Harris is actually a human guest who delights in torturing the robot hosts. Critics have begun to speculate about what this change might mean for the adaptation generally, and I suspect they will continue to do so as the series continues. A section cataloging these changes between the original film and the adaptation might be necessary and useful as the series progresses. Megancondis (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Location
This article, as well as IMDB, only mentions Los Angeles as a filming location while the end credits in episode one state that the show was filmed on location in Utah, which corresponds with the scenery we see. Peter (Cactus Pete) (talk) 02:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * IMDb is by no means a verifiable source. LLArrow (talk) 04:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright violation in Financing section
Affel inexplicably countered my deletion of the Financing section. The entire section needs to be deleted until it can be re-researched and rewritten from scratch in a fashion that complies with U.S. copyright law. If you trace the article history, the text was inserted several days ago by an editor who has been previously banned for a pattern of copyright violations. It reads like a "copy and paste" of key sentences from the THR article, followed by a token attempt at rearranging or inserting words here and there, to make the copyright violation less obvious. The correct way to get information into Wikipedia is to draft new prose from scratch that accurately summarizes the relevant statements, allegations, arguments, or conclusions in the underlying source. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:34, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I made that section a comment. So I can myself rewrite it. - AffeL (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So noted. That's fine.  Thank you. --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode 2 release date
This is obviously a nitpicky distinction, but since it's probably not worth edit-warring over... I don't think sticking the online release in a footnote is really the right way to go about this, and if it's so important that there be only a single release date is in the table, it should be the *earliest* release date. To pick a totally random example - The Magnificent Seven (2016 film) mentions the (EDIT) comparatively tiny release at the Toronto film festival in the lede, and then the infobox mentions both the tiny hype-building release as well as the "wide" release separately, listing the first release, well, first. Tetris has so many release dates there's a "show" button in the infobox for it, and the first release date is listed first as well. I'm not sure why this case would be different; the release date is the first time some media is "officially" released (e.g. not stolen draft copies or the like). In this case, October 7. SnowFire (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I see your point, but still feel the information tedious and near-irrelevant to the mass audience. Let's see what consensus prevails. LLArrow (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but a TIFF release is about as big a release as you can get--maybe not in terms of numbers but in terms of attention/publicity. It's one of the world's most well-known venues for movie premieres and they are open to the public (even if that public just happens to be whoever can make it to Toronto and get tickets).  Anyway, I think we're rapidly getting to the point where an official (non-leaked/non-bootlegged) online release shouldn't be treated any differently from a "traditional broadcast" release, especially in this case as, to the best of my knowledge, anyone with a HBO account has access to HBO Go, right?  Making a distinction between release on HBO Go vs. HBO because HBO is somehow a "mass" release vs. its free-to-all subscribers online service seems like a stretch.  I would list the Oct 7th date with a footnote stating it was released on "regular" HBO x days later--see the premiere ep of Van Helsing (TV series) for a similar case. Joeyconnick (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Joeyconnick: Nah, not being sarcastic, I just meant *relatively* tiny - however big the TIFF release was, it was surely dwarfed by the "wide" release, but the TIFF release date was still the release date. Edited the phrase above slightly.
 * it's arguably tedious to have 2 release dates, but per above, there should *just* be the Oct 7 release date if we want to be super-concise. Per Joeyconnick, the online release is not some irrelevant sideshow these days - it's a huge percentage of how people watch HBO.  It will be an even larger percentage in this case where the episode is basically an online-exclusive for two days.  As for consensus, all of myself / Wikipedical / Joeyconnick seem to think that prominently mentioning the online release date is fine, while you're the only one against so far...?  Any objections if I restore Oct 7 as the consensus release date?  SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm someone who believes the "original" air/release date really means original. So I support listing the online date in the episode table, consistent with many other series. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * After reading your detailed POV's I'm inclined to agree. October 7th should be listed as release date in table, while the airdate on HBO should be the footnote. LLArrow (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

The table says "Original air date". Not "Original release date". So we should stick with the day the episode for the first time airs on HBO. - AffeL (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree. I get that originally "air" meant "broadcast over the airwaves" but these days, that distinction is becoming less and less relevant. If anything the "original air date" header should be modified to "original release date" if that evolution really bothers anyone. But I think treating the release of the material by its creators/owners to the public as the "original air date" is much more in keeping with the spirit of what details these tables are trying to capture. Joeyconnick (talk) 04:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Season one color theme
Recently the original blue shade that was being used for the season one color theme, was reverted to match the new title image. However, I believe the blue should remain, due to the fact that the color-schemes of the season are not to be determined by the intertitle, but rather the marketing material. The publicity imagery for the first season has been chock-full of the dark blue hue. Let's form a consensus on what everyone thinks is the best course of color. LLArrow (talk) 07:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I am completely against the practice of just blindly hewing to what ends up being an effectively randomly-chosen colour from marketing materials for season colours to start with, because I think the focus should be on season colours that are distinct from one another so wikipedia users can easily visually distinguish between seasons and I don't see any reason why season colours should match marketing materials at all if this means they end up being arbitrary similar shades of the same colour. But instead you get this morass of similarly-hued greens for a show like Arrow, reds for The Flash, and blacks/dark browns for Teen Wolf--the colours end up being so similar it's laughable. Wikipedia content should serve wikipedia users, not serve to promulgate marketing decisions that are often made by people who have nothing to do with the show.


 * That being said, I saw the edit to which you're referring and unless there's a policy stronger than Manual of Style/Television that says otherwise, I support returning to the blue since it was the established colour. I've certainly never seen anything that says we use colours from the intertitle for shows in their first season... and even if that has happened, show me the policy and then explain how that improves upon the established colour. It doesn't, since ultimately all these season colour choices are totally arbitrary since even if they are based on DVD or marketing materials, those choices were also arbitrary since "colour" is not any kind of meaningful property of a season of a television show. Unless the show creators come out and say, "This is our Season X colour," I don't see how there's any good argument for any particular season colour choice.  So it boils down to community choice and therefore, as I understand Wikipedia, we go with what came before unless someone can make a convincing argument of how the change improves the article. Joeyconnick (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The original blue color should be restored as it matches the poster for the first season . We usually always match poster or DVD artwork. Using colors from title cards makes more sense when there's no other source to choose a color from. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Local consensus in the Television WikiProject has always been to use the main colour of the intertitle for single-season series, then to split it into colours based on home media releases for separate seasons; this series has no specific and separate seasons yet, there is just the series, as it has not yet been renewed. Thank you,, for bringing up Manual of Style/Television, which clearly states "Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo". Given that the series logo has been updated in the infobox, the edits have been supported. (And yes, colours are pointless, they're too similar, they're not official, etc, etc; I've been down that discussion road before and I don't plan to do it again.) Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I say stick with how it is now ( 8F9A94) to compliment the logo and if/when the page is created for season 1, that will most likely include the poster, just change the color to compliment it then. Kelege (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Alright so we have three editors for the blue, and two for the silver/grey. Where do we go from here? Anyone else care to speak up, please do so. LLArrow (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. 2) Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * What in the hell does that gibberish mean? What is consensus if not a vote? When all is said and done, people are not going to roll over on their opinion. Someone is going to be left unsatisfied. How do we come to that conclusion in this instance? Can someone besides Alex offer an explanation, since the editor tends to be against me. LLArrow (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again with the blind claims of being against you. Consensus is never a vote. It's not X against Y. Editors who disagree should understand this and accept that not everything goes there way. Anyways, we digress. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 05:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is never a vote. You could have a million editors in support of blue and three for silver, but if the editors on silver have stronger rationales and discussion points than the million other editors, silver could become the winner. That's what the policy on consensus means and why editors like myself and Alex constantly bring it up in these discussions when you and others make statements that read to us as if you think it is a vote.
 * As for my thoughts, the 8F... silver color should be used, as that is representative of the color from the image currently used on the article, which is the title card image. The blue should not be used, as that was from a promotional poster, which is different than the title card image. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Number of episodes
Just a quick note - the Template:Infobox_television detailed guidelines for num_episode state "The number of episodes released. This parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production. An inline citation is required if the total number of episodes produced is greater than the number aired, such as in the case of a show being cancelled.". We have confirmation from HBO that there are at least 9 episodes that have finished production: http://www.hbo.com/search?type=schedule&seriesIds=PMRS4624&q=Westworld — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9C28:9900:80B0:5095:9671:F3A1 (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Please allow for other editors to voice their opinion here and build towards consensus, rather than edit warring. For the record, I am against the change to listing the number of produced episodes in the infobox over the number of episode which have aired. In my experience, the majority of pages increase the total as episodes air. As both formats are acceptable, my opinion is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Trut-h-urts man  (T • C) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As am I. I'm pretty sure that the removal of the quote "when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production" is up for discussion to be removed per the mass MOS:TV updates. And IP editor, please be aware that you are now at the discretion of any editor that deems your edits disruptive enough to report you to WP:AN3 for your edit-warring violations. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:28, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving to talk, much appreciated. My opinion is that the number or actual known episodes is a better indication of the scope of the series than the number aired, and deserves a higher information ranking. Sorry, but I don't follow the "ain't broke" argument here - lots on Wikipedia isn't broken, but aren't we all about adding and refining information, rather than maintaining the status quo? :) If there's a change to the way that num_episodes works, then will totally respect that change - until then, it seems to be that the rule is applied based upon tradition rather than facts? 2A02:C7F:9C28:9900:80B0:5095:9671:F3A1 (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to work on the "lots on Wikipedia isn't broken" rule, then follow what those articles do - use that parameter for the number of aired episodes, and add into the lead or body the number of episodes that the series is set to produce for the season. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 21:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, interesting - would give it a go, except I'm not sure of the format to use there (I hesitate to ask, but are there guidelines that would prevent a likely reversion by other Wikipedians?). Way outside the scope of this talk page, so I'll bow out after this, but it seems sad that there's a semi-rigid set of rules that are applied in non-obvious ways. For someone who's not deeply into the Wikipedia politics, it's difficult to come along and make a positive change. Anyway - thanks for engaging in a positive way and trying to help. G'luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9C28:9900:80B0:5095:9671:F3A1 (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're really interested in making positive change, I would suggest to calm down.  Edit warring is not a way to make positive change, and rules that have been observed for years aren't going to be changed in an instant; these things take time. --SubSeven (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally calm, only 'warred' because there's confusion about the current rules that wasn't being explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:9C28:9900:3157:645B:BFC0:AED4 (talk) 14:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Character descriptions
I think they're based on obsolete sources which were citing casting calls or preliminary press releases, while the characters changed roles in the completed production. For instance, Lawrence in the show is not a "charming but lethal outlaw, with a knack for maneuvering and negotiating the various criminal elements of Westworld." This description doesn't seem to have anything to do with the actual depicted character. And the source for this description is from July 2015. Kumagoro-42 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Timeline speculation does not belong in character descriptions
Please stop editing unproven speculation into character descriptions. Speculation and fan theories have their place, that place is not Wikipedia. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016
In the description of episode 3, it reads as if Dolores killed a guest in the text below.

"When Dolores arrives at the homestead, guests that Teddy had previously scared off in town, are with the bandits. One of them drags her into the barn to rape her. She steals his gun but is unable to shoot him until she sees him as the Man in Black. "

That is incorrect, as she killed a host, Rebus (see https://www.reddit.com/r/westworld/comments/5a1ys0/official_hbo_westworld_episode_synopsis/?st=iv5fryha&sh=68eb230a). As a result I suggest the relevant section gets reworded as follows:

"When Dolores arrives at the homestead, guests that Teddy had previously scared off in town, are with the bandits. One of the bandits, a host, drags her into the barn to rape her. She steals his gun but is unable to shoot him until she sees him as the Man in Black. "

Martinjbrand (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out! I've made the relevant edit. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Critical Response
I take issue with 'with particular praise for the visuals, story, thematic elements, and world building.' It is unsourced (the sources provided do not cover this). Also, the specific elements basically summarise all filmmaking. It comes across as vague and poorly written. I recommend removing the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.246.187 (talk • contribs)
 * You have both violated WP:3RR, and I'm well within my mind's right to report you both for an edit-warring ban. This page has been requested for full protection from all editors, so you can discuss this issue, without reverting further Alex&#124;The''&#124;Whovian ? 14:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic source do cover those. AffeL (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They do not. If you believe they do, please point out specifically where they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.246.187 (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First, the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic refs seem to be fairly bad ones the face of it, as generic links to the series pages, and not links to particular reviews by particular reviewers. Second, no, the homepages as they appears today (they're dynamic if I'm not mistaken), do not appear to directly support the wording currently at issue. Timothy Joseph Wood  14:27, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * See: Vicki Hyman praises the elements. Los Angeles Times. praises the story/plot and world building to name a few. This guy praises all of the above things you removed. All of these are in the Rotten Tomatoes source. if you take a quick look, you will see. AffeL (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Timothyjosephwood pretty much highlighted the problem as I saw it. One particular reviewer praising elements is fine. But that is one reviewer, and is not across the board. Also, the terminology you're using (e.g. thematic elements) is so vague. I think it's fine to say that reception has been positive - your source clearly shows that. But the other things are more problematic. I think the best thing is to just remove the line, but if you're insistent on highlighting these particular attribtues, I think you should firstly use more specific terminology (your terms could be applied to almost any moderately-well regarded film) and use more specific sources rather than generic links to series pages that highlight these.


 * If you want I could add specific references to the critcs, instead of just Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic. - AffeL (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that would help. I suggest removing 'thematic elements' (or getting into the specific themes - going to specific sources will aid with this). Secondly, the term 'world building' is also vague. The specificity you're suggesting though, is the best solution. I recommend you go ahead and change it and I promise to support it - just don't use the term 'world building' please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.182.213 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Kudos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.182.213 (talk) 14:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

For the record, this is why you take an issue to talk instead of trying to hash out sources and wording in edit summaries. Timothy Joseph Wood 15:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Lesson learned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.182.213 (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked AffeL and the IP for both violating 3RR today. Can everybody else decide on what consensus is for this article, change it to that, then I'll unblock both of them. I'm not doing this to punish either of you, but I need to see hard evidence that neither of you really are not going to revert each other first. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I just said I will accept his change, and praised it here. That's as hard evidence as I can provide (also the fact that I've responded here and said as much, and have not reverted his change). Also, do not punish AffeL (that is what you're doing) - he absorbed my criticism and implemented it well. I'm new to editing, so this was a learning curve for me.

Player piano renditions featured in Westworld...
Westworld (TV series) section mentiones every single song covered in the show(some are even left out). These covers are all mentioned in the specific episode articles. As the show goes on the list will just get bigger and bigger. My problem is that do we really need to list every single song that has been covered in the show? - AffeL (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would be completely for removing these listings... I don't see why they're notable at all, even in the episode articles. But they're certainly way too minutiae to be included in the main article. Joeyconnick (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's wise to include at least a few. A lot of people will hear the songs (e.g. Paint it Black, No Surprises) and seek what they were. Obviously they can find that info elsewhere, but it would be good to have it here. I agree with AffeL not all songs are requisite. I think just two or three of the popular ones as examples of the popular music included (and also their licensing costs) would be of value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.182.213 (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * IP editor, please indent your posts with an incrementing number of colons at the start of your post, and sign the end of your posts with ~ . Thanks! Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries, mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.182.213 (talk)

Notes concerning spoilers in the cast list
For most TV shows, the fate of a character past the first episode of a season is usually not included in the description in the cast list; for instance, if someone dies midway through the season, that is usually not listed in the cast description. I had noticed an editor had changed the description of Bernard to "a host". We really shouldn't say that in the description, as people who have just started watching and come to the page just to see who the actors are will have a big part of their experience spoiled. I changed it back for now, although I would suggest a more permanent solution considering we are bound to find out more employees are hosts, or that employees are getting replaced by hosts. We could say "a host" for the ones are obvious, and then "an employee" for the park employees. I should remind everyone though, that at this point in the show (ep 7), the only person we know that is absolutely not a host is Robert Ford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:1209:81A5:1AC6:6A04:A69A:D0F9 (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that we do not factor spoilers out from any part of an article per WP:SPOILER. And you must be unfamiliar with articles for television series - many more of them list the events of the series than those that do. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you sure about that? I understand that many of the main pages of shows contain "spoilers", but what I was saying was the fact that it was a major spoiler in a place where you wouldn't think would contain one (the cast list). Usually, if I look up a cast list for a show I'm about to watch, I don't want to know about the character's fates.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.107.28 (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We're here to deliver information, not cater to what a reader thinks should and shouldn't be there. A character list is going to include information about said character, including, yes, their fates. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * AlexTheWhovian is right on this one, spoilers are not meant to be avoided since Wiki is here to just give data. I would only suggest that the line not start with statement that Bernard is a host, but rather should end with "later discovers he is a host" or some such thing.  This isn't to delay the spoiler, but rather to give some context to his story arc (in same way that you would not start with "dead" for a character that doesn't die until season 3 of a series) Jmg38 (talk) 05:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. And the way it is written now, someone who came to this page to find the name of the actor for the role of Bernard would be confused if they haven't watched episode 7. They might think "no, Bernard wasn't one of the hosts, that must be some person". The way you suggest of writing it would be better.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. First, Bernard is not a host - term devoted to androids living in the park and programmed to entertain the guests. 'Host' isn't synomym with 'android'. Secondly, and more importantly, we shouldn't change the early story because of future developments. Please go to other film/show pages and note that in such circumstances, big spoilers like this one are (almost always) avoided. This isn't a question of what the cast list should or shouldn't disclose, rather how the characters are introduced in the first episodes. Here especially, Bernard IS the head of the programming division for six episodes and not a android, and changing that descrpition because he turns out to be one, distorts completely the narrative of the first six episodes. Snugsjida (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The order of the main cast...
I don't like the way the main cast is listed. (Is there a logic behind it?) Why not follow an alphabetical order, or an appearance order? Putting a newbie like Wood on the top and a heavy weight as Hopkins at the bottom is very insulting. --5.170.124.114 (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The order is based on the shows main title sequence, the cast are listed in this order. That's how they are credited. - AffeL (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll go check it but if I remember correctly not all of the actors listed here as "main cast" appear on the main title sequence... --5.170.124.114 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes they do.. Ed Harris and Hopkins are credited last. (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elkHuRROPfk&t=40s) Which from the first episode. - AffeL (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Checked. The very first episode main title sequence does NOT have this order. For example Ben Barnes and Clifton Collins Jr. do not appear. Others too do not appear. Why are they listed before Hopkins and others? --5.170.124.114 (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because when they do appear in episode two. They are listed before Hopkins and Harris. In that order. - AffeL (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a wiki policy or guideline about the way to list cast? What if I relist them according to appearance order or according to alphabetical order?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.170.124.114 (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes.. this is how they should be listed because it's how they are credited in the show/film itself(this obviously goes for any film/show). This is the official order of the show. Really... How hard is that to understand? - AffeL (talk) 21:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all: stop with the condescending tone. Second, this is not the order they are credited, since most of them appear in some main title sequences but not in others. (Why then keep the same order if they are entirely removed in most of the other episodes main title sequence?). My question is why are some actors who have very sporadic roles, listed here before Hopkins who is a constant presence...? I think that this way of displaying the main cast does not make a good service to the show and to the fans who watch it. When I find time I'll edit the lsit myself ordering it according to appearance order. (Even though if I find other shows that have the cast listed in alphabetical order I'll opt for the second.) --5.170.124.114 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a good way of listing the cast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Detective_(season_1)#Main_cast --5.170.124.114 (talk) 21:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The True Detective one is also based on how they are credited, just like any other show/film. Just like: Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Mark Hamill, who plays Luke Skywalker is credited second, even if he barely was in the movie. Because that's how they are credited by the film. - AffeL (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:TVCAST, actors are listed as they appear on screen, as that order is decided by the producers and removes all bias that would exist by ordering by appearance, importance, or alphabetically. This is an easily checked ordering to go by. Additionally, if some actors were not in the credits in the first episodes, but were added later in the season, their names go at the bottom of the list, regardless of where they are actually in the order. And a note, if you do try to alter the list, you will be reverted, per this reasoning. It is the reason TVCAST exists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No need to menace. I agreed with this "...if some actors were not in the credits in the first episodes, but were added later in the season, their names go at the bottom of the list, regardless of where they are actually in the order". That was my point, because some characters who weren't in the main title credits in the first episode were above Hopkins even though they only appeared in later episodes. Now the list seems ok. --5.170.131.60 (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

DVD release
Please add DVD release info when available.-71.174.180.6 (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is not protected. You are more than welcome to do it yourself. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect he'll forget by then. The request is here though, so hopefully when the information is available someone will notice this thread and add it. Zell Faze (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

plot/episode summaries
It's almost the end of the season and it's confirmed that multiple timeframes are at work. There should probably be some thought about how to reorganize the plot summaries to reflect that once the season finale airs. Probably split off the episode list to a season page and have a chronological plot summary there. 50.197.11.93 (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Tagging summary of 1x10
Can someone please explain to me why the Plot tag for the summary of episode 1x10 keeps getting removed? Both Episode list and WP:TVPLOT state that the summary should be 200 words maximum. Length doesn't and shouldn't affect this at all - many series have episodes which are 90 minutes, even more (120 minutes?), and they can comply with this. It is, after all, meant to be a brief summary - any excess detail can be added into the episode's individual article. If you disagree with this, I would recommend contributing to the new discussion of the overhaul of WP:TVPLOT, which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/August 2016 updates/Plot section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexTheWhovian (talk • contribs)

Archiving
Adding ClueBot III's script to archive this talk page. Elisfkc (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

unbelievable.
there should not be goddamn spoilers right in the Cast description. I was merely looking at the actors, and the text under Jeffrey Wright's character is ridiculous! spoils the entire thing. I am pissed off!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:C900:C336:CDB1:574D:DBB9:6615 (talk) 09:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not restrict "spoilers" and the cast description is the right place for general information about the character, not just how they appeared in the first episode. I have a personal policy of not viewing the wikipedia page or any information on the internet about a TV series until I am caught up, even if I would like to know about an actor for example. Just viewing their biography page might reveal plot information. Also please place new comments at the bottom of the talk page or use the "new section" tab. DIY Editor (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with above, this issue has already been settled years ago. Keep away from WP if you don't want to know about things revealed in episodes you haven't seen yet. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just completely incorrect. Well written articles about TV shows have 1.) No need for spoilers on the main page because the information is contained in the separate pages for episodes or seasons and 2.) Have cast lists where the only purpose is to say "this actor appears as this" because that's what a cast list is. Absolutely ridiculous to say "settled years ago" when all the other pages for the currently running HBO Drama shows (i.e ones that may contain "spoilers) contain NO SPOILERS IN THE CAST SECTION. If you need links, Game of Thrones, The Leftovers, and True Detective which are all better constructed pages.
 * Every article differs in content; not all articles for HBO programs are identical. This is not the only article with this layout, and it is completely acceptable from a guideline point-of-view, instead of your own personal views and decisions. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 01:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * One extreme does not preclude the other. The character blurbs were excessively detailed for the characters whose entire plotlines were spoiled, because some Wikipedians have an overly reductive idea about spoiler policy. No, Wikipedia should not include spoiler warnings nor artificially hide "spoilery" details, but neither should it artificially include them. If it's possible to write an encyclopedic character blurb that doesn't spoil the plot just because it can, then Wikipedians should err on the side of being nice to other human beings. As per my edit below, I have cleaned up the character bios to be more descriptive of the characters and not be info dumps deliberately aimed to make a "point" about WP:SPOILER Unigolyn (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's being done deliberately. Since people keep bringing up the style guide, can I bring up the entries for cast list from WP:TVCAST? An example would be "Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon", not "Harrison Ford as Han Solo: The pilot of the Millennium Falcon. He becomes a member of the Rebellion. He later gets married to Princess Leia, who is Luke's sister. He is killed by his son, Kylo Ren." Please stick to the cast list entries like the examples.--Agentxorange (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That is the most basic example possible to give a generic usage. Do not extrapolate off of it as much as you have. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You say that I can't use other well written articles as examples, and I get directed to the TV pages. I use an example of the WP TV pages and you tell me it's no good. Can we just agree for one second that there's no reason to include unnecessary details which do nothing but make the article longer and look worse. No, apparently there has to be some crusade to deliberately include random details that do nothing for the article, just because it was brought up that it was all unnecessary in the first place. --74.67.107.28 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion has been noted; if you can gain a consensus that the content is unnecessary, then it can be removed. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 23:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the person who said, "...what I was saying was the fact that it was a major spoiler in a place where you wouldn't think would contain one (the cast list). Usually, if I look up a cast list for a show I'm about to watch, I don't want to know about the character's fates." After I'd watched six episodes, I looked at the Wikipedia article to remind myself of some of the characters' names. Well, the Ed Harris and Jimmi Simpson character descriptions ruined the show for me. I'd rather not have that happen to other viewers. Can the spoilers be permanently removed? SciFiMs (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)SciFiMs

You appear to have missed the entire point of this discussion. Spoilers are not to be removed. We are not here to pamper readers and their needs, but to list facts and update the page as the series progresses. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Although Wikipedia doesn't prohibit spoilers per se, it wouldn't hurt if writers would be considerate of people who haven't finished a given work and always put them somewhere where people expect them, such as the episode summaries. In my view, being considerate isn't, as you put it, "pampering"; rather, it's common courtesy. But it seems that others don't share my view and articles will continue to include spoilers. Therefore, in the future, I'll be sure to avoid Wikipedia until I've seen/finished a work, and I'll alert others to this.SciFiMs (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2016 (UTC)SciFiMs
 * No, we share your thoughts - saying "we aren't here to pamper readers" is like saying that "you can't understand this because I wrote it so well." If you push your bias, have to spoil stuff where it's unneeded, or write using the wrong tone/language, that is the hallmark of a bad writer. As I pointed out, well written main articles for TV shows don't need to include spoilers because it's unnecessary. Literally just this guy who's responding doesn't share your thoughts, apparently. --2604:6000:1209:81A5:9B4A:D88C:DF84:C305 (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You consider them well-written because they don't have spoilers in them, exactly what you want, so using them as examples is an obvious conflict of interest. I've only watched the first episode, do you see me complaining about spoilers? No. Because I am sensible and understand that content gets added as the series continues. We already take "consideration" into consideration; we don't list everything that happens, because then it would become a bloated section of fancruft. We list what is necessary. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 06:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well good thing that you've only seen a single episode and you're attempting to talk to people who've watched the whole series AND trying to write the article for it. I don't edit articles for TV shows or movies without seeing them for obvious reasons. Not for any bias, but because I like to be informed personally. Same thing with bios, I don't edit biographies without actually reading about the person first. --74.67.107.28 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There's a clear majority for no spoilers in the characters section, especially if you consider the three sections on this in the discussion page (and archive). I also don't see any reason why Bernard being a host is relevant information. Besides from being a spoiler, it's an in-universe detail. And he isn't even a host. Cyborg yes, host no. Besides, it's custom to state someone's function at the start, rather than at the end. Otherwise some cast members would be for example "dead" rather than "head of QA". So i propose we close this discussion and stop adding irrelevant and incorrect info to the character list just for the sake of spoiling. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Disagree. There's a clear consensus to allow the "spoilers" per the multiple any many editors reverting the removals, the protection levels added to the article to prevent the removal and due to this, I would recommend that you allow the status quo to remain until you gain a new consensus. Even per WP:BRD, your [b]old edits was [r]everted, and now we [d]iscuss. We're definitely not closing it after you've just reopened it two months later. I support the use of spoilers - the list is to describe the character to a basic necessity, and him being a host is an extremely important part of who he is, and a more important part of the narrative. We are not a fan service who caters to though who haven't seen the season, as you stated here; we are an encyclopedia. Should we have hidden the news of Trump becoming President because some people hadn't found out yet? No, and therefore it should not apply here. I would also recommend to you a thorough reading of WP:SPOILER. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Spoiler policy reminder
After seeing several of the threads on here mention spoilers, I have decided to put up a reminder at the top of the talk page regarding out spoiler policy. This should hopefully help catch these sorts of things before they start. Zell Faze (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem. The issue is that the spoilers are being included deliberately and are not making a better or cleaner article. --Agentxorange (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know about the no-spoiler policy. Let's at least not mention in the character list that Bernard is a host, just like we don't mention that the man in black is William. We're doing a huge disservice to people who haven't seen the first season and not providing any useful information to those who have seen it, since it's an in-universe detail which is irrelevant to those who haven't seen the show. Especially since the characters section is at the beginning of the article and it's a section where you don't yet expect any spoilers. See also the archived discussion on this. PizzaMan (♨♨) 15:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bernard Lowe is an anagram of Arnold Weber
Bernard Lowe is an anagram of Arnold Weber. please add to page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.185.221 (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not done; unsourced trivia. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 07:45, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, the name Arnold Weber was an invention of Reddit anyhow. I don't think that is mentioned as his actual name anywhere in the show. Zell Faze (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In episode 9, when Dolores is under the church and Ford goes to confront Arnold, you can see on the door to Arnold's office his name is "Arnold Weber". You can see it again in episode 10 when the same scene is replayed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. Zell Faze (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Plot detail, sourced or not. Unnecessary for a cast list. Make an episode page and add it there if you want. --Agentxorange (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of awards and nominations received by Westworld
Per the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Westworld, the result was to keep this article. However, multiple editors stated that a merge-discussion would be more acceptable. So, I propose that List of awards and nominations received by Westworld be merged into this article into a single table, an example of which exists on the AfD article previously linked, due to the belief that a separate article is not required for a one-season series that has won only three awards, the second season of which may not be premiering for another two years. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 07:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I vote no. This article will soon be needing to be broken out into other articles. The show is exploding, it's literally the most popular thing on television ever. Merge then split seems like extra work . I vote to retain both articles. User:Pedant 104.172.111.237 (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When partaking in a discussion of article-based content, please remain serious and do not exaggerate; it is not "literally the most popular thing on television ever". Thank you. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 08:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:AlexTheWhovian. Westworld is off to a good start, but has not yet become widely famous like Game of Thrones. Because the show is on HBO, an expensive premium cable network, the showrunners will have to finish one or two more seasons before they can start drawing GoT-size audiences. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Merge List of awards and nominations received by Westworld should be merged into Westworld (TV series). The number of awards and nominations are hardly enough to justify it's own page. If the next season was premiereing early next year that might be reason to keep it separated but that's not what's happening. Also, I think the pending awards should be removed because they don't seem relevant since they're not nominated or won for the show. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep List of awards and nominations received by Westworld. The number of awards is enough.. no valid reason to merge. - AffeL (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The series has won three awards. That's nowhere near sufficient for a split. If this was Game of Thrones, your point would be valid. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The series has won four awards.. all of them being major awards. And has been nominated for like 30. In the next few days many more awards will be announced, being that it is award season. - AffeL (talk) 09:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Four, not three? My bad. That's quite the difference! I've seen merged awards tables with up to 50 awards. Believing that there will be "many more awards" is original research. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 09:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:AlexTheWhovian on this point as well. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. For the persuasive reasons stated by User:AlexTheWhovian and User:74thClarkBarHG. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I vote keep as it is now. PeterD12 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * @PeterD12 Why do you vote to keep it as it is? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Because there is no need to merge it together. The article is big enough to be its own page PeterD12 (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, per the arguments that have been listed above. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per AlexTheWhovian. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Any further thoughts? It has been five days since the last opinion, and most seem to be agreeing with merging. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:06, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's 50-50. Not most people.. - AffeL (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that this is not a vote - there are more arguments put across for the merge than there are against. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright then.. but one question? How many nominations does the show need for it to have it's own article? Just so I know when to bring back: List of awards and nominations received by Westworld. I know you mentioned 50 noms or something. - AffeL (talk) 12:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably a lot more to actually make the article relevant, and not just a conglomeration of tables and a tally (which is what most accolades articles seem to be). Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. I created: Draft:List of awards and nominations received by Westworld and I will update it and hear back with you when to bring it back. So, you can merge it now. I don't mind. - AffeL (talk) 12:25, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be aware that content such as that should never be simply copy-and-pasted between articles (see uw-copying for more information); the article should have been moved from the mainspace to the draftspace. And it is not up to one editor to determine whether it should or should not happen, which is why I bumped the discussion rather than closed it myself. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Final request for comments, before I request a non-involved admin or editor to close this discussion. The proposed merged table is displayed in the below collapsible section. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there should be at least 10 nominations or 10 awards before the nominations and awards are split off to it's own article. Also, I think the pending awards should be removed because they're not won or nominated for the show. 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I support a merge at this time. There's not enough content yet to warrant a separate article. Pending awards should definitely stay, as they count as nominations until the results are revealed. I see no value in removing that information. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a sufficient amount of information that would just cause the main article to become more unfocused, and the series is likely to receive many more award nominations once the 2017 awards information is made available. Calibrador (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Likely" is an editor's own original research and beliefs, and in contrast to the arguments that have been proposed. Are there any new arguments that can be put across to oppose the consensus to merge? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:Bludgeon. Calibrador (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The essay does indeed cover your reply rather well. Especially the second point. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 04:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Separate award article?
The awards have been growing in a enormous rate. As we can see almost 40% of this article is the award table alone. So Seeing that it has now over 50 nominations recived. Do we have to take a vote or do we all agree for the separate award article? Here is link to the draft article: Draft:List of awards and nominations received by Westworld. - AffeL (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with splitting the awards table. The table contains about 5kB of readable prose, which per WP:SIZESPLIT does not justify splitting it to another article alone. For a similar discussion, see, specifically the more recent messages, on why the episodes table has not yet been split to a separate article, a table of which encompasses more space than Westworld's awards table. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 03:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Episodes and Awards are different, you can't compare those two. 60 awards is enough. Their are plenty of award articles with less awards than Westworld. Like for example Stranger Things has it's own award article. Well I think the show has clearly enough nominations for it's own article. And another question Alex, how many awards do you believe is enough? Last time you said 50, but now that their are almost 60 and you still say it's not enough. - AffeL (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * They can be compared, and so I compared them. Also, you're wrong; I said I've seen merged awards tables with up to 50 awards. I did not say that it should be split at 50 awards, nor will I give a definite number, as it's not up to me to decide. The Stranger Things awards article was created today, which I was not aware of, but thank you for bringing that up! I've redirected that one as well. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You say it's not for you to decide. Yet you go on and redirect the Stranger Things awards article with out any consensus. This is a community. So that's why Im asking what other Wiki users if we should have a separate award article for this show. And you did say:, "I've seen merged awards tables with up to 50 awards". Saying basically that more than 50 is fine. You have yet given any good reason why a separeate page is not necessary. If you do not, know that award article will be created. As it is, as you said not up to you to decide. - AffeL (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a WP:BOLD edit to split the article, and per WP:BRD, if a [b]old edit is [r]everted, a [d]iscussion by said community takes place. Perhaps I would suggest to you that you read up on your essays, guidelines and policies before assume that I'm attempting to own any articles. I said "up to". Not "right, once we hit 50, no matter what the show is, we must split!". Not at all. There's not enough content for a separate article, which I explained by way of readable prose - that is a solid enough reason, and if you determine that that's not good enough, that's up to you, not me or anyone else. If you create it without gaining a new consensus against the above discussion, which was contributed to by multiple editors, it will be reverted again, and possibly not by me. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I can wait for the separate award article to be created, no problem. If the show gets 100 nomination, would that be okay for you too split the page in your opinion?. Seeing that you are the only one that disagrees with the splitting. Just so I know when to come back with this. - AffeL (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm the only one? Are you seriously? 1) The discussion has been open for 12 hours! Are you expecting dozens of editors to have commented by now?! Good lord. 2) There's an entirely discussion above this one based on !votes for the merge/split. Wow, AffeL. Gain a new consensus for it. Go from there. That's all there is. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are saying it's not enought in your opinion for a separate page. But how many awards does it need for it to be enough for you, in your mind?. - AffeL (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I have repeated myself so many times with you; what's one more time? So: I did not say that it should be split at 50 awards, nor will I give a definite number, as it's not up to me to decide. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 12:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not what I asked. - AffeL (talk) 13:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You asked how many. I said I have no specific answer. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 100 it is then. - AffeL (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on what guideline or policy? Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on size. What do you base your guideline or policy on? Get consensus. - AffeL (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating myself again! The table contains about 5kB of readable prose, which per WP:SIZESPLIT does not justify splitting it to another article alone. Size is my basis for not splitting; I give you my guideline. You have linked none. Enjoy. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 14:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Ratings
From what I can see this article doesn't include the ratings for each episode? Can we fix this? Seanmurpha (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What type of "ratings"? If you're referring to viewership, they're right in the episode table. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)