Talk:Star Trek: Discovery

Reliable, Reputable, Serious

Could someone please supply a source for the arbiters of "Reliable" or, "Reputable", or "serious"? Those terms could all too easily devolve into "weasel-words" suited to the views of one, or a few particular editors and reduce overall objectivity. Sochwa (talk)

@Sochwa: You just have to read WP:RS to understand reliable sources in Wikipedia. Robynthehode (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There's more than a professional critic's perspective of any television show or movie, any work of art. Noting the public reception of especially controversial art is useful in any reference work, including wikipedia. An average person would read this page and not know much that is relevant in not only the overall evaluation of the art but in it's production history. A blurb would do, and there are many reputable sources that mention the full scope of public response to this artistic work. I haven't the time or the inclination to attempt to fight with potentially heavy-handed editors, but partisan evaluation of art is not the vision of wikipedia that I hold dear as a disinterested general reader. I'm not interested in star trek, but I've heard from enough people complaining about this interpretation that I thought to see what is mentioned on wikipedia. Nothing at all is mentioned. Though a cursory internet search demonstrates heated and ongoing conversation. This disconnect between what is presented in a public reference work and what is actually the case is concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.127.52.235 (talk • contribs)

You're not bringing anything new to the table, so I'm just going to be blunt. If you can't cite a single reliable source that talks about any of this, then it's probably because you're a fringe minority viewpoint. DonQuixote (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I mean it has a reader score of 38% on Rotten Tomatoes, and an IMDB rating of 7.2, which makes it the lowest rated Star Trek series ever. Anecdotally speaking I don't know anyone who actually likes Discovery. This article represents a fringe view as far as Star Trek audiences are concerned. If it represents the general consensus of "reliable sources" then wikipedia must be broken on a fundamental level. 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:217D:5176:6F39:CA3F (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there, buddy - you should probably pump the brakes a bit on presenting your opinion here. You don't speak for Star Trek or ST audiences, so perhaps clue in on the fact that your opinion doesn't equal fact or a Reliable Source. If you need help in understanding how this all works, just ask. Tantrums are a very poor way to ask for assistance. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there little pal - you should probably take a step back and wipe that foam off your mouth, as I was doing no such thing (unlike this sad and dishonest article). The audience ratings that I mentioned, as well as the show's pathetic viewership says a lot more than I ever could in the most elaborate of opinion pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:A4AF:F540:CD98:6A99 (talk • contribs)

The streaming viewership is speculative because companies can choose whether or not to share the real numbers and, with a little intuition, you could assume that it must have a decent enough appeal to Paramount+ (therefore people still paying to watch it) for it to keep being renewed, even with an apparent negative audience score. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Audience scores on RT or IMDB are not reliable as only a very small amount of the audience uses either website... and your not knowing anyone in your friend group that likes it is also not notable... I actually enjoy the show, but that's not notable ether and why we only use reliable sources. Spanneraol (talk) 02:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Totally disagree with this. Audience scores on RT and IMDB have a much larger sample size than critics' scores. Therefore, the latter are less reliable. Also, TV series are made for the public and not for critics. From this statistical review, you can see that critics and general audience are drifting farther apart, especially for productions with low audience scores. --Rocator (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

How is an easily manipulated metric more reliable than a stable metric? CreecregofLife (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Someone who watches 5 minutes, then posts a comment "it's trash" probably wouldn't face the same scrutiny as a critic, who is being paid to give their review, also writing the same. That's a hypothetical, to be clear. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

If only you could see the irony in such a reply... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:54E2:1D00:A4AF:F540:CD98:6A99 (talk) 02:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Unless you provide a citation of a reliable source known for fact checking and/or peer review, nothing can be done. DonQuixote (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

That (probably) old saying "quality over quantity." We can't WP:VERIFY every audience review/rating, but we can check a handful of well-known critics. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Rottentomatoes Average audience score

It should be noted, that wiki is giving tomatometer scores, which are rarely low for any show, but unlike with other shows, Star Trek: Discovery has 2x lower "average audience score", which looks like AN ANOMALY. That anomaly should be noted. Apparently, most of the actual people who were watching(or stopped watching, because why bother) ST:D actually does not share the same opinions as reviews are sharing. I came here to see how the 4th season was doing, but oh well... PS I stopped watching this show, because the main genre of ST:D is not sci-fi anymore, but belongs to the same genre, that Bible belongs to(it also is a fiction but nothing to do with a science). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.27.15 (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You need to cite a reliable source that talks about any of this. DonQuixote (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The lower scores is because of review bombing.. and we never list RT audience scores. Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The genre is called fantasy. @Spanneraol: What is strange, RT cited as a reliable source while also an unreliable one. Just looking at this talk page shows there is something fishy about the whole situation, also, RT has anti review bombing measures, so it's very unlikely, that the audience score was bombed and the critic was not. Unless, of course, you can cite a reliable source that there was a review bombing on RT. See how loopy these ways of thinking sound? A source can be reliable and unreliable at the same time, the reviews are bombed and not bombed, but only one of them needs a citation... 80.99.156.192 (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, The Times is considered a reliable source but the Letters to the Editor published in The Times is not. It's not that hard to understand. DonQuixote (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it very unfortunate that there is this determination to shut down negative response to this series. Someone else had cited the low ratings of viewers on RT contrasted against reviewer scores. While supporters of the show want to ignore that number and call it review bombing reading through those reviews it's easy to see that's not the case. Balance is the key to Wikipedia and not providing a balanced view diminishes any positive benefit Wikipedia has as a reference source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're not bringing anything new to the table. WP:USERG specifically says not to use user reviews. Again, to be completely blunt, if you can't cite a single reliable secondary source with a reputation for fact checking and/or peer review, then it's probably because you're a fringe minory viewpoint that shouldn't be given more voice then present (see WP:DUE -- specifically articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint -- and WP:false balance -- specifically Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity).

On a side note, I think it's time for a FAQ at the top. DonQuixote (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

White washed article?

Where is the negative criticism in this article? Why is there only the biased review from rt and meta? No audience rating? No sign of the intense negative backlash from a lot of Star Trek fans worldwide? Whats wrong with WP? KhlavKhalash (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

See above discussions which address this issue. Spanneraol (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@KhlavKhalash: While I do agree there may be an unintentional bias towards positive reception, that is representative of the general critical consensus; even though Rotten Tomatoes isn't perfect, it is the go-to for an aggregated critics' response, which is why it's mentioned on practically every major film's article. Simply adding the audience-equivalent may lead to more of an actual bias (WP:UGC), rather than perceived, because viewers are more likely to be polarised, than a critic who is likely to face scrutiny over a review.

It's the case with any long-time franchise where the background influences response: for example, a critic not aware of continuity is less likely to consider it, over a fan aware of any conflicts. However, I do think there may be room to include a mention of some complaints, particularly given the fandom that is Trek and how certain aspects of the show have been included/modified to appeal to that demographic, because it certainly hasn't been universal acclaim from critics or every viewer. If you can find a suitable source, which addresses your concerns, and can stand the scrutiny (i.e. probably not a Star Trek fansite blog), you should propose the additions. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed FAQ

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.

---

Q1: Why isn't there any negative criticism or mention of the fan backlash?
A1: Wikipedia policy requires that all material be verifiable to reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Additionally, sources must be reliable for the topic at hand and their viewpoints must be given appropriate weight in proportion to their prominence among all others. The article reflects the viewpoints represented in reliable sources.

Q2: Why aren't user reviews or audience ratings used?
A2: Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. User reviews are user-generated content. And although review aggregators (such as Rotten Tomatoes) may be reliable, their audience ratings based on the reviews of their users are not.

DonQuixote (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

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

See template:FAQ. DonQuixote (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I support this move, we've been getting the same questions here for years. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I support it too. I imagine that a lot of regressive/anti-progressive people push such content through in the name of fairness, when they just want to give their cruelty a platform. Hopefully this repels it--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's very funny actually. You are pushing your own agenda here by denying very real negative reaction to the series. Just to see what was the reaction on IMDB in terms of user reviews it skewed out as this:

1/10 1,167

2/10 371

3/10 298

4/10 224

5/10 215

6/10 162

7/10 194

8/10 362

9/10 345

10/10 660

I understand the idea some want to drape this as ‘regressive’ response because it may not agree with someone's personal viewpoint but there is validity when you look at the reviews across the spectrum. There is a very clear negative response to the franchise and it has more to do with bad writing than anything else but the intransigent stance is just a form of denial. It's really very disappointing honestly more than anything else that wikipedia will not report in an unbiased manner. There is a very clear response to this franchise across the spectrum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, user-generated content is explictly unacceptable per WP:USERG. That was half the FAQ right there. The other half is that you need to cite a reliable source saying that there actually is a "real" negative reaction--otherwise it's just your anecdote which in-and-of-itself isn't going to be taken seriously by any tertiary source like Wikipedia. The more you refuse to cite reliable sources known for fact-checking, the more you paint yourself as a fringe minory viewpoint who's no more credible than flat-earthers. DonQuixote (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, gee, I wonder why the reactions peaked with the first episode? Because that’s all the negative energy they could muster to reviewbomb. They couldn’t keep it up the entire season because in order to keep any levity to it they’d actually have to watch. That such tantrums should be given a platform is ludicrous--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately you’re showing your own ignorance, those ratings are of the franchise overall not a single episode so as far as your speculation that it’s review bombing that’s far from the case. You made the mistake in thinking that each of the reviews were by episode and they were not. Rather, the intention was to provide a spectrum of the reviews the franchise has received and obviously it has been trending differently than you would like. It’s the same case on other sites as well but you choose to ignore that for your own reasons and again it’s somewhat disappointing that Wikipedia is showing bias rather than giving a balanced viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless you publish your observations and analysis in a reliable source known for fact-checking and/or peer review, tertiary sources like Wikipedia can't do anything with your original research. DonQuixote (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

So, to understand this clearly... reviews, which are opinion and not factual in any way - just a subjective judgment of a work of art, are not valid unless you ‘feel’ they should be recognized? Audience response across a variety of sources is going to be totally ignored because you don't agree with that viewpoint. Wow, that sounds really factual (well, maybe not factual as much as farcical). Got it. See the earlier comment regarding presenting unbiased view on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Reviews by professionally published critics are included. Review bomb attempts by random anonymous internet users are not. It's not a hard concept, and is the same across Wikipedia. Especially since the bitching of haters is irrelevant to the fact that the show is well generally well-received and a commercial success, which is a plain fact evidenced by its multiple seasons and continued renewals. Loud whiners don't count, and YouTube is full of lying clickbait seekers. oknazevad (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That’s a nice lie you want to tell yourself. Variety has run articles on this: https://variety.com/2020/tv/news/big-brother-abc-game-shows-star-trek-discovery-tv-ratings-1234783699/ the ratings for season 1 on broadcast have come in: https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-discovery-season-one-ratings/ and when articles such as this are written you choose to ignore them because they are negative: https://redshirtsalwaysdie.com/2020/09/26/star-trek-discovery-low-ratings-cbs/ so it's not review bombing at all regardless of how you want to paint it and this just proves how biased this article is. If you're telling me this is normal for Wikipedia then in one fell swoop you have just condemned Wikipedia as any kind of useful reference source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 15:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reruns of episodes already streamed by millions don't mean jack and you know it. Already renewed for a fifth season. Keep whining while the rest of the world actually watches the show. oknazevad (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I’m curious... where is the actual DATA to back this statement up? I don’t see anything that actually gives viewership numbers outside of you flapping your gums on this. Do you have a source you can point to that gives us the actual numbers for streaming? I haven’t found any outside of the data that we have for the broadcast ratings.

If you want to cite those sources for low TV ratings for reruns of a pay service show, feel free to do so, although reruns aren't generally noteworthy so you probably won't get a consensus on that. DonQuixote (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Ha, see... I’ve given you sources and reviews clearly laying out a different narrative than the one you present here on this page but you keep changing the rules at each go round. First you indicate it’s only reviews from established sources and I’ve given you that as well as the Variety article and the actual numbers for the broadcasts of Season 1. You just don’t like the fact it proves what you are trying so desperately to ignore. The show is a hot mess. The writing is bad. Now, that’s my own subjective opinion granted but you are ignoring every indicator there is a mass of folks out there who are not receiving this well. Also, since Paramount+ chooses not to release viewership the way other streaming services do, we only have the ratings for broadcast to go on and they are horrendous. The page needs major cleanup if only to present a more balanced view of the reception but again if the mods here are so very determined to ignore that you are only indicting the validity of Wikipedia as an unbiased reference source. The show and it’s direction has been a problem from the beginning as indicated by incredible turnover in production on it. Mind you, I think people REALLY wanted to like this but it’s just not good. The ratings numbers we do have for it are just more proof of that. Let’s take it one step further... in terms of overall viewership Paramount Plus comes in 12th of 12 for streaming services (https://screenrant.com/ten-most-popular-streaming-services-ranked-subscriber-numbers/) this is not a major hit in anyone’s book and if it was when it did hit broadcast it would have generated a lot more eyeballs because the streaming service just doesn’t reach the viewers other streaming services do. But, look... you guys win. If you don’t want to push a balanced view that’s your business again, it speak volumes to what Wikipedia has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

"Not a major hit by any means" And your metric is reruns. You lack context. The only bias here is yours--CreecregofLife (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

As stated earlier, Paramount does not release viewer or ratings on any of the shows on its streaming service. It is ranked 12th in a listing of the 12 most popular streaming services and the numbers that have been released include Showtime and BET+ so( https://screenrant.com/ten-most-popular-streaming-services-ranked-subscriber-numbers/ ) it is impossible at this juncture to actually gauge how popular the series is on streaming aside from the fact that with a sizeable fanbase when the first season ran on broadcast there were still many people who hadn’t seen the show and the numbers were abysmal. If the show was as good as is made out, it would have garnered higher ratings and driven traffic to the streaming service which it appears it did not. While you want to position these numbers as numbers for reruns you presuppose that Paramount+ has huge market penetration which it does not. Characterizing ‘whining’ is a bit childish. You wanted verification and you have been given such verification. Further, the show has not received any recognition for acting, directing or writing by either the Emmys or the Golden Globes. What mainstream awards it has won have been for visual effects and makeup. But, again I will not change the page to reflect reality when it is obvious there is a concerted effort to shut down any objectivity by a few. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Mr IP 71, you are reaching SO MUCH it is embarrassing for you. It’s not childish to call your whining whining because you keep crawling back trying to get every whine out there. The only reason you don’t want us calling it such is because softer language would help legitimize your ludicrous stance. The flaws in your data are very apparent, now please, don’t touch anyone on your way out.--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@71.190.233.44 You need to cite reliable sources stating how any of that is important, otherwise no one's going to take your original research seriously. DonQuixote (talk) 11:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

CreecregofLife, I see there's been talk about bouncing you as an editor and now I can see why. Your behavior here is the same behavior that continues to get you into trouble. As far as citing reliable sources, I've given a bunch of links I really can't see how they are any less valuable than some of the other sources cited on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

You're going to need reliable sources on that too. Just because youve shared a bunch of links doesn't mean they were shared in a context that actually pertains to what you seek to prove--CreecregofLife (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

You're going to need reliable sources that directly say something like If the show was as good as is made out, it would have garnered higher ratings and driven traffic to the streaming service which it appears it did not, etc. because right now it's just you, which in-and-of-itself constitutes original research from an anonymous internet person without any verifiable reputation or credibility. Wikipedia works by reflecting the views of reuptable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't even understand why he chooses to lie. He's not looking for evidence regarding its P+ performance, otherwise he would've found this: Paramount+: ‘Star Trek: Discovery’, ‘iCarly’, ‘Infinite’ & ‘A Quiet Place 2’ Top Most Watched Originals List. He's being completely disingenuous and pretending things are a certain way when they're not--CreecregofLife (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Funny, I don’t see any actual numbers posted in that article.Do you have a site that actually provides that data and the only viewership numbers we have is for broadcast again which can be found here: https://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/star-trek-discovery-season-one-ratings/ and which is not self published.

Ratings aren’t even an indicator of quality, or else the cratering of non-sports ratings would mean every show on network and most of cable sucks now. And because of all the different types of shows, that means claims of “nobody’s into wokeness” would be disproven because such would prove nobody’s into anything anymore--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Now that it’s up, why are they both marked at 1?--CreecregofLife (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

That error was already fixed, perhaps you need to WP:PURGE? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope, between two separate devices and several hours passing, it's showing up fine now--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Changes in templates sometimes takes an hour or so to update. DonQuixote (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

So what makes critics on Rotten Tomatoes realiable source, when every, single audience score place Discovery as total junk? Same as Batwoman? Kanikosen (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Gee I wonder what Discovery and Batwoman have in common? Stop giving audience scores the same weight as critics--CreecregofLife (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

High critical acclaim for being deverse and catastrophic user ratings and reviews. Same how with Joker is other way around. So mind telling me why is every single site where public can vote, Discovery score abysmal? Kanikosen (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you take an introductory statistics class to learn why self-selection polls are unreliable. DonQuixote (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Apparently racism and sexism don't cross his mind as a reason why the user ratings are so poor. That it has nothing to do with show quality--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, racism and sexism? Really? Seems as if you’re bringing your own biases to the table here. Let’s put this into context then... Dominique Tipper in The Expanse does a far better job than Sonequa Martin-Green in Discovery. It’s better writing and better acting. Now, that’s my OPINION and doesn’t belong up on a Wikipedia article anymore than your claims of racism and sexism do because you don’t appreciate the reception for Discovery. It’s not the entire property either that’s bad because there are elements of it that I do believe are being received quite well. However, overall there have been things like the tenet that the Burnham character is a Mary Sue ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-iux27wT8A ) and the funny thing about your earlier comment here is that the article you cite states the following: "THERE ARE NO HARD NUMBERS as no streamer besides Netflix has released viewership stats yet but there is a list of some of Paramount+’s top performers" but as stated we DO have hard numbers for the broadcast of Season 1. Again, you’ve gotten more than enough references showing that the property is NOT being well received but choose to ignore that. Again, I’m not editing the page here. The thing is that that is not being reflected on the page and IT SHOULD BE. That’s the only thing I’m saying. I’ll make this easier for you... you win. Again, it’s more about presenting an unbiased source and ignoring that there has been significant negative reaction from fans is putting a finger on the scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Every single site on Internet where people can vote is infiltrated by racist and sexim? Every single one? And introductory statistics will explain why say, youtube reviews of discovery are 95% negative, and 4% mixed with only 1% positive? So all those people are racists and sexist? Why is not same for DS9 (black captain, transgender crewmembers) and Voyager (woman captain, usa minority in command crew)? Kanikosen (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

You two are being utterly ridiculous and your tantrums here show this discussion is no longer worth advancing--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, your aspersions about racism and sexism are shown to be false and consequently your argument proves to be ridiculous. Again, it’s not a question about anything other than presenting things in an unbiased light and the overall fan reaction is a part of that and it has been largely negative. When the series aired on broadcast it didn’t draw eyes, it’s as simple as that. Those are hard numbers and much more valid than the article you cited which doesn’t give us anything to back up the claims. I apologize to others for even engaging in this discussion as I can see it’s gone far afield of the original intent which was to get a more balanced presentation on the page of the response to the series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

No, your intent was bias towards audiences who aren't actually the audience and to give them undue weight--CreecregofLife (talk) 04:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

That statement is just a mind boggling display of logic, "bias towards audiences who aren't actually the audience" so what you are in essence stating is anyone who comes away with a negative view of the work should be ignored - "we" only want to acknowledge the people who like it. Priceless. Further, I guess there is just this one or a few very racist/sexist person(s) who appear to be going around posting all these responses. At least that’s my takeaway from the continued and purposeful lack of acknowledgement about fan response across the spectrum. I call that denial and again, I’ve provided a variety of sources regarding, this including the data we have actual numbers on. You have yet to show any actual data on what the viewership is on the 12th ranked streaming service because Paramount doesn’t release those numbers. Reading the article here I would come away with a very different idea of Discovery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless you guys start citing reliable sources, none of what you guys say or claim will make it into the article proper per WP:CITE and WP:RS. And whether or not you learn that self-selection polls are unreliable (for example, from a statistics class), Wikipedia will not accept user generated content per WP:USERG. Also, read WP:DUE and WP:false balance--that is, there will be no "balancing" if you don't start citing reputable reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 12:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And also, viewership of a season on broadcast released 3 years prior on streaming isn’t an indicator of quality or fan reaction in any way. Some great movies have been box office flops.--CreecregofLife (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What is a reliable source, as so far if I post critic who say that the discovery is bad show I will be labeled sexist, racist will be to quote who aren't actually the audience and to give them undue weight? So where do you get who is the audience? Reading this article in this form you would think Discovery is a great show, and not bad. Same as Batwoman. Kanikosen (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The people who actually watch the show are the audience. If you haven't watched a show since season one and the show has much more content than that, then leaving a non-substantial review holds no weight. Please sit down and listen.--CreecregofLife (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Self-published sources aren't considered reliable sources (also see WP:RSPYT). You can get a general idea of what constitutes a reliable source by starting at WP:RS. DonQuixote (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

"The people who actually watch the show are the audience." (LOL) Maybe you should simply add the sentence that the show is popular with people who like the show. I’ve watched all four seasons and truthfully it’s gotten to the point where I can simply fast forward through certain scenes because they don’t advance the plot at all and it’s just chewing scenery. As far as self-published sourcing goes, the majority of the links I have provided you are not from self-published sources, you choose to ignore them but again don’t mind me or all the other folks who apparently aren’t all that happy with it. It’s just a sad commentary on the effort to shut down balanced views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

What you lack is context, and your lack of context means your sources have no relevance here. It does not sufficiently make your point.--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It’s not so much a question of any of the sources lacking context, it’s more a question of choosing desperately to ignore them because it doesn’t agree with your viewpoint. At various times you have accused people of being racist or sexist, you’ve said that the only actual numbers we have are for reruns although it’s the only actual numbers that are available for the show (since Paramount+ doesn’t give actual numbers on viewership). We’ve got info from Variety and other sources but you are desperate in your attempts to try and spin this. Honestly, I’m past the point of caring as much as it’s fun to watch you keep trying to justify your position. Feel free to continue to flail it’s fun to watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's safe to close this thread, since there is no more productive discussion happening about improving the FAQ with reliable sources. Politanvm ^talk 16:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I do think it's best. Their case got ridiculous pretty quickly--CreecregofLife (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

CBS Nielsen Ratings (2020-2021 TV Season)

Background

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

Summary

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

For context, the original specific line, is:

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

Remove

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

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

Include

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

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

Discussion

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

@Adamstom.97: Although I can appreciate your desire to keep the page focused, your removal of new referenced information, under a relevant (and not newly-added) section, simply because of your own view, is not a positive contribution and I disagree with your choice to remove the single sentence about how many measured viewers actually watched through a TV channel.

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

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

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

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

I don’t think the information is bad to include, but I have seen TV Series Finale described as unreliable, but maybe it’s just the general news reporting part than the ratings reporting. I was able to find StarTrek.com’s article about that those airings would be happening, it can at least verify that they were scheduled/happening, if you so wish. I think the actual reception in the audience reaction way would be colored by being acquired programming used to bide time to get their original programs going again during that phase of the pandemic, not unlike The CW’s continued reliance on such even into 2022-23. CreecregofLife (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bacon Noodles: firstly, your behaviour here is out of line. Adding the same WP:BOLD change to an article three times and ignoring clear explanations from an experienced editor who disagrees with them, not to mention good faith guidelines such as WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, is edit warring. Just because you "feel" that your change is good does not mean you get to force it upon the article before consensus to make the change is found at the talk page. The onus is on you to justify your change here and get support for it, not on me to get support for having it removed. Please revert your latest edit until this discussion is complete.

I disagree that "Ratings for reruns aren't usually noteworthy and can be misleading" is just my opinion, I was making an objective statement. It is definitely my experience working on TV articles that we only include the first run ratings for the day of release plus the next week or month if available. I have never seen rerun ratings added to an article and I don't think it is difficult to work out why that would be the case. It is also definitely the case that presenting rerun ratings as the only actual ratings for the season like this is misleading, and once again the onus is on you to alleviate that by providing further context and analysis yourself. You can't add bad data to an article and demand that other users put in the work for you. If you think this data is noteworthy and not misleading then you need to provide the sources to support that.

Finally, even if you do provide the necessary sources to support the inclusion of this data, it 100% should not be in this article. The viewership section here is a summary of all of the viewership data that we have at each season article and is meant to give readers an overview of the series' performance. Putting this rerun ratings information at the same level as the actual streaming viewership data that we have is WP:UNDUE, and mentioning the reruns at all at this level is trivial. If you can provide the sources that discuss this data, to put it into the correct context and confirm that it is noteworthy, then I will probably support having it in the reception section of Star Trek: Discovery (season 1) (which does already mention the CBS reruns, by the way). But it does not belong here. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

That’s true, the context of the CBS airings is so different, a completely different headspace incompatible with that of when it’s actually first received. Minds are already made up, and fans of the show probably already have it at their disposal and did not need the CBS airings to satiate. Granted not everyone consistently keeps a subscription but these factors say a lot to the unclear picture of what the CBS audience is supposed to represent CreecregofLife (talk) 08:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Using a the number of edits you have, to justify the control of content and repeated removal of one sentence, which I don't think is particularly WP:BOLD is egregious. Your continued argument that any season-specific information should be relegated to the respective page and simply ignored, does not make sense, either, given the other considerations available. Attempting to misuse policies, to continue your overwatch is also not an attribute to your apparent expertise: WP:STATUSQUO is intended for where conflicting wording on the same point should revert to the previous norm, not where new information is added, which does not interfere with original sections, and removed based on one individual's decision. Despite what you are trying to say as an "expert editor," you are not the WP:KING.

Instead of reverting, insert an appropriate tag indicating the text is under discussion.

— Wikipedia editing advice, regarding reverting edits

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

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

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

@CreecregofLife: You're right about the source and editorial posts; in the context of the CBS ratings, it's more of an indirect source for Nielsen because the raw data is more of a niche publication for insiders, compared to the weekly top-10 on their website. There were a few other websites, along similar styles (TV blogs, Trek stuff, etc.) that stated the same statistics and source, but it was the least commentary-heavy and most data-rich of the most prominent sources I could see. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 20:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You may want to take a read of WP:WALLOFTEXT, massive posts like this are not helpful when trying to have a discussion. Throwing as many policy and guideline links as you can at me is also not doing what you think it is, and accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP to justify getting your own way without consensus is not how Wikipedia works. The fact that you think moving season-specific content to the season-specific article is ignoring the content is very confusing, the whole point of that article is to have all the information on the first season. If it is also noteworthy enough to apply to the series as a whole or to fit into a summary of the seasons then it can also go at this article, but you have not provided the sources to justify that notability. Once again, you are the one who wants to add this to the article so you are the one who needs to justify its inclusion with sources and commentary. You don't just get to add trivial, misleading data to an article and force it to stay by edit warring and text dumping. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

FYI I have also started a discussion about rerun ratings for streaming shows at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television since our guidelines there don't cover this situation and it applies to more than just this series. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Update, we have added a line to MOS:TVRECEPTION to clarify that ratings data for reruns is not noteworthy by default and needs reliable sources supporting why it should be included (which should be discussed there if there are any concerns). Since there has been no response here in a reasonable amount of time, I am going to follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and restore the article. This discussion can continue if needed, but there won't be any progress here until the user provides the reliable sources needed to support this inclusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Rather than personally modifying MOS:TVRECEPTION, so you can use it to override the discussion, including feigning a complete ignorance to the multiple reasons I and others have discussed, in the above, as to how including a single line on TV ratings for the series is not a simple precedence to run an argument on default, I would suggest finding a more valid reason to counter inclusion, that is not based on a position appearing to be WP:KING. Blindly using headline shortcuts, ignoring the content of the pages you link, e.g. WP:BRD-NOT... a reason for reverting., goes against one of the most important principles WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:DISCUSS. If you want to clarify your explanations on how your choice of policies apply, do so, without such petty WP:WAR attempts. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's just how I write, but I do appreciate chunky text being OTT, so I'll reiterate the points concisely. In your multiple reversions, repeatedly misusing WP:STATUSQUO and your subjective viewpoint on WP:BOLD is inappropriate for one sentence on ratings, which has been given an appropriate source and context; this is the sign of you feeling WP:KING, hence you acting like WP:OWNER. The central point is you asserting your own viewpoints, into blindly washing the average ratings for the CBS run as somehow "misleading," while having a lack of similar concerns to sections, in my view, are more actually speculative and misleading, i.e. "Parrot Analytics top-15 of 20 million stream guide users". Finally, the best way to voice your concerns is not to simply revert to your will, when an edit is non-disruptive, is referenced and has been justified; at that point, you should discuss removing it (above), on an argument other than a supposed superiority, based on edit count. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 03:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

It's silly to continue accusing me of WP:OWNERSHIP when you are the one who keeps adding disputed content to an article without consensus, trying to force your preferred version of the article. We don't add ratings for reruns of one season, especially without appropriate context and sourcing, and especially especially not at an article where the scope is the overall series / multiple seasons. That, plus the fact that you have reverted multiple times despite knowing that your addition is controversial, is why WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Your blanket reversions are signs of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR because the prime policy is to WP:PRESERVE to discuss, particularly at your choice to use WP:WEAKSILENCE as your own determination of consensus. And, as it clearly states, if you had read it, WP:BRD is not policy, but a method to induce discussion. So long as you want to continually link it, also consider reading WP:STATUSQUOSTONEWALLING on abuse of WP:STATUSQUO. Rather than continue to use an argument of technicality and aesthetic to obfuscate the information, it would be better to state why you deem the contextual considerations and references I have included as invalid, and how this should not be treated as WP:Case-by-case. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to point that there is a general consensus that it is inappropriate to add ratings of secondary networks when they are just reruns without commentary nor coverage about at all. We cannot include ratings of every single reruns. — YoungForever^(talk) 03:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

In general, it wouldn't make sense to include figures for every rerun, given how numerous and varied showings can be. However, the specific context of Discovery, in my opinion, merits a mention of a whole season being shown in prime time on CBS, particularly in the scope of viewership, where there's a lack of complete public streaming statistics. Not every streaming show receives a broadcast run, so there isn't a wealth of precedents to compare articles, hence a better reason to discuss it. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not see any differences with this TV series at all. The ratings on CBS of the reruns did not even make an impact in renewals. It maybe a different story if the ratings actually made difference in renewals. — YoungForever^(talk) 13:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's an alternative commentary, if it was relevant, because as an intended stopgap, assessing it for renewal (e.g. emphasising it was not shown the next year) would be undue; in this case, the notability is that a full season Discovery was shown at prime time on CBS, which is not standard procedure for streaming shows. The inclusion of Nielsen ratings add to the context, compared to other shows in a similar position - one of the references, although not added to the article, talks about a comparison with prime time rerun of Bull, which was not a streaming show, two weeks before Discovery's run. The fact that it was only the first season is incidental, if it was ongoing, it would then have more of a potential to separate it into the individual seasons' pages. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 18:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact that CBS was missing content because of Covid and used content they had for their streaming service is not notable. Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bacon Noodles: I appreciate that you actually put the bare minimum effort in and provided the necessary sources to support the data, however we are now giving a huge amount of WP:UNDUE weight to the ratings for reruns. They make up almost a third of all the viewership data we have on the series in total, which is giving way too much importance to something that means literally nothing for this series as a whole (as multiple editors have pointed out now). There is no justification for doing this in the context of the series as a whole, and very little for doing it in the context of just the first season. All this data tells us is how many people were willing to watch reruns of a three-year-old show on CBS during the pandemic, and I would argue that the only people truly interested in that information are CBS. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I get you still feel like the owner, but don't begin insulting me because I questioned your decision to blindly erase a point you disliked without discussing it, then when you went as far as changing a manual to get your own way. The fact that giving context, an average and consequences of both, takes up a third of the section in three sentences says much more about the other parts of the section being lacking - don't complain on it being WP:UNDUE, when the only other two sources are random streaming guides that are not easily WP:VERIFIABLE. Perhaps you should petition Paramount+ to release more statistics to add, rather than attempt to reject and ignore the various separate sources who commented on the low, albeit rerun, ratings, as they found it notable enough to mention. Not to say 1.7m isn't more than "how many people were willing to watch reruns of a three-year-old show on CBS during the pandemic" because that is the exact commentary. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 21:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

That's the background and, on its own, that's more of a notability for the 2020–21 TV season and consequences of COVID-19 on television production. However, in the context of viewership, which is where the addition is placed, it's my view that the notability comes from being prime time on a Thursday and being illustrative of the broadcast audience interest; including the average rating quantitatively defines that point with what may be the most objective and reliable source (Nielsen). -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 22:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

References