Talk:The Orville

Perhaps a little merging?

Not even counting the infobox, the cast list is given three times in the article -- twice nearly identically.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

U.S.S. Orville ECV-197 physical filming model

Description: U.S.S. Orville ECV-197 physical filming model from The Orville 2017 TV FOX show

URL:

• Image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DAXdbpPUwAAk2ak.jpg
• Page: https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/866341973896044544

License:

{{Non-free use rationale
| Description       = U.S.S. Orville ECV-197 physical filming model from [[The Orville]] 2017 TV FOX show
| Source            = https://twitter.com/SethMacFarlane/status/866341973896044544
| Article           = The Orville
| Portion           = whole
| Low resolution    = 
| Purpose           = Illustrates the primary setting of the TV show
| Replaceability    = No, all imagery related to the TV show is copyrighted by FOX Television
| Other information = 
}}

Link To License Information: {{Non-free fair use}}

Author/Copyright Holder's Name:

• Photo: Seth MacFarlane
• Sculpture: Robert Legato
• Artistic rights: 20th Century Fox Television

Article To Be Used On/Reason For Upload: The Orville

-- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ship name

In the article, it says that the name of the ship is "U.S.S. Orville". Are you sure it isn't "USS Orville"? Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

USS has always referred to the abbreviation United States Ship. Here is a Fox website showing it with the "."s as "U.S.S. Orville" https://www.fox.com/the-orville/. --Catagris (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not always. It certainly did not mean that in Star Trek. Spiny Norman (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The ship is from the Planetary Union, so it could easily mean Union Space Ship ; In Star Trek, it was United Space Ship or United Star Ship for the UFP (United Federation of Planets; "the Federation") depending on if it was a Space Ship or a Star Ship (see the episode "Bread and Circuses" of TOS for the difference between a Space Ship and a Star Ship) -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

In reference to the Wright brothers Orville and Wilbur who flew the first airplane at Kitty Hawk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:b146:ef06:8f9:d545:c77c:deba (talk • contribs) 09:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add "Reception"

As far as it goes for now, critics have panned the show's pilot episodes, as there are mostly negative reviews on RottenTomatoes and other websites. This needs to be addressed in the Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.125.213 (talk) 09:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I added it recently, It would be great if people can check the metacritic and rotten tomatoes pages as the critic rating seems to be changing daily. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 01:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What is considered these days as "negative"? What medium does the review have to be in to be considered noteworthy? In Facebook offical and fan groups many people welcome this series with a positive note, praising the familiar surroundings and realistic dialogue. --85.253.83.11 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Basically avoid things like user reviews and social media reactions from fans, these aren't considered notable for Wikipedia. Anything else like critic websites are fine. Wikipedia has to be impartial so don't be afraid to cover positive and negative reviews. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Most sources of fan reaction are not reliable sources, things like user voted web polls are notoriously easy to cheat and ballot stuff and there's no guarantee voters have even watched the show. (So in theory they could be notable but they're almost always not verifiable or reliable.) In most case the best available indicator of viewers opinions is the ratings, but it may be possible to find other surveys that are reliable.

To put it bluntly that means NONE of IMDB user voted scores, Rotten Tomatoes user voted scores, and Metacrtitic user voted scores are acceptable. -- 109.78.248.181 (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand now. The critics are always objective and not biased towards, let's say, the creator of the show. Also they are physically not capable to accept money or favours for writing either a positive or negative review. Much better source than fan reactions. --85.253.83.11 (talk) 11:36, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Typical sanctimonious WP commandos. I think if fans are willing to cheat for a TV show by flooding polls and review sites - maybe that in itself is an indication of a show's popularity. eh. 198.161.4.63 (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Another well intentioned editor using unreliable web polls and their own original research and quotes from some random poster on a forum. Fails WP:RS and WP:OR and what's worse is another editor actually approved it too.
The article as it stands has the only negative review from a critic despite the overwhelming negative reviews, and one positive review that make a fair point that the critics dont get MacFarlane. It isn't even clear if Eric Kain is a regular critic at Forbes. If anything this article is giving undue weight to the very small amount of positive commentary.
Even so after three episodes it would be good to get some prose to explain if the Ratings are good, average or bad. As I understand it the first episode got good ratings. If editors are careful to avoid original research and can find some good explanation of the ratings there is still room to interpret the ratings as an indication of audience reaction. -- 109.78.206.252 (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe not. 50% drop in the key demographic doesn't sound good at all. -- 109.78.206.252 (talk) 14:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Watching the preview for episode 7 Majority Rule there was a quote from USA today calling The Orville "must see TV". I found the article by Anna J Stewart on The Orville. While other critics I read thought the 3rd episode was awful, she thought it was great and urges audiences to keep watching saying "it’s found its footing in the space genre and earned me as a fan."
I don't want to give undue weight by cherry picking individual critics but I know how badly flawed Rotten Tomatoes can be especially since TV show ratings are often based only the first few episodes (or less often skew the other way by reviews from when the whole season is reviewed). As more episodes are broadcast there is a good argument to be made for including more reviews from positive critics so long as it is made clear that these critics have watched more of the series. (Then again I don't much trust the reviewer because she goes on to write about Star Trek Discovery and thinks it is in the JJ Abrahms rebooted universe, which is not.)
The show clearly has an audience that likes it but who knows what requirements Fox have set for it to be considered successful enough to keep making it. We will have to wait and see. -- 109.79.168.244 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

"Admiral Halsey"

Is this a reference to the Paul & Linda McCartney song? I ask because it could probably be added to the article. 98.20.133.88 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It could also be a reference to American admiral William Halsey Jr. associated with the CV-6 USS Enterprise from WWII, but unless a reliable source says anything definitive, everything — including your suggestion — is speculation. — al-Shimoni (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

As this is a Star Trek homage, the USS Enterprise CV-6 would seem a more likely reference; also all the shipnames being aviators, and Enterprise being an aircraft carrier, that is also in keeping. -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Ratings

The article currently says the first episode got adjusted up to a 2.7 rating according to TVbyTheNumbers, date Sept 13. Deadline says the show rating was adjusted up to 2.8, also dated Sept 13. Do we have final fixed ratings for the first episode yet? How can we know which is right or wrong? -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Why a certain editor changed the original ShowbuzzDaily rating to TVbyTheNumbers was stupid given the former does NOT impose any stupid rounding on their finals and the former states complete share demo figures that can be correctly averaged unlike the later that incorrectly averages them. TVbyTheNumbers is an unreliable source and does not provide accurate figures unlike ShowbuzzDaily and should NOT be used. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The raw ratings numbers don't mean much to me, I'm hoping someone will dig deeper and add more prose explaining it better but I'll probably have to do it myself eventually. I've got a vague idea that the show seems to be doing well enough with the target audience, but I'm trying to read a bit more to make sure I'm not misinterpreting. (I think it is an interesting and important counterpoint to the critics who most likely saw only saw the first 3 episodes I was interested to see the ratings bump for episode 7 attributed to heavy promotion from Fox, and the article also explains the early ratings peak having the NFL as a lead in, and also the predictable drop when it moved to a different timeslot. I think it will be interesting to see how it all settles down when the season is over, and if someone else hasn't expanded the Ratings section by then maybe I'll give it a shot. -- 109.79.136.54 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Moclan Gender Identity

I noticed that AussieLegend changed a description of the Moclans from "all-male" to "single-sex," with the edit summary "Moclans are a single-sex. Use of "female" was at best peculiar. How would they know what a female looks like?" Now, from a real-world viewpoint, I totally agree. If a species is single-sex, then it must either be all-female (and reproduce via parthenogenesis, like the New Mexico whiptail) or individuals must be hermaphroditic (and reproduce via self-fertilization like a lot of plants, or via mutual fertilization like garden snails). But that's only because of how chromosomes and DNA worked in the progenitor of all life on Earth, resulting in specific biological definitions for male and female. In reality, a non-Earth organism that reproduced sexually would quite possibly not have a male/female biological identification (let alone gender roles), and a single-sex organism would quite possibly defy any effort to identify in terms of male and female. And so the only way to describe Moclans would be "single-sex." However, this isn't the real world; this is a work of fiction, in which the single-sex Moclans are explicitly identified as "male." In the first episode, Ed mentioned that Moclans are "single-gender," and asked Bortus if the "entire species is male," to which Bortus responded "That is correct." And in the second episode, Bortus identifies his offspring as "female," which Klyden deems "impossible." So, regardless of whether or not it makes sense to us, it is verifiably established in the work that this species is "all-male," and that they nevertheless have a concept of what a "female" is. And, technically, the Moclans are not established as "single-sex," but rather as "single-gender." So I think it would be more appropriate to retain the description as "all-male," rather than changing it to "single-sex." --DavidK93 (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I've looked at the episode again and you are correct. Moclans are a single-gender race that identifies as all-male. However, I don't see an issue with stating that they are a single-gender race. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the main reason to use "all-male" instead of "single-gender" here is because the implication in the episode is that the reason for the offspring's "impossibility" is that she is female instead of male, rather than that she has a binary gender instead of conforming to the single gender. So the summary is clearer for the reader if we use a description for the Moclans that refers as clearly and specifically as possible to the characteristic that is violated. But perhaps the next episode will shed more light on the storyline significance of this development, which might clarify the best way to characterize this in the summary. --DavidK93 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

"All-male" implies "single-sex" though, as would "all-female", while "single-gender" is not that ambiguous. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I am fine leaving it that way for now; I believe it would require a greater depth of in-universe context that is not yet available, either for me to coherently argue any position, or to be convinced of any position. Hopefully, that information will eventually exist. --DavidK93 (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

After I saw the next episode, I significantly changed this section of the summary of episode 2; episode 3 makes it clear that female Moclans are known to be born on rare occasions, so I avoided contradicting that, despite the characters' use of "impossible." --DavidK93 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Can someone clarify that this is a genuine 'comedy drama'? I checked FOX website (https://www.fox.com/the-orville/article/about-the-show-59728d82ef528f0026dc02d0#article-59728dab84bfd30022f94f7c) and I don't really see them putting in that genre, instead, they put it on space adventure genre. Xerophytes (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The Futon Critic classifies it as a drama. Some websites claim it has comedic elements. Editors have used that as justification for calling it a comedy-drama. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:09, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Should Orville have 'space adventure' as its genre since FOX classified this as 'space adventure' show? Xerophytes (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

How about light-hearted space adventure? This isn't rocket science, you know...137.205.101.55 (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Numerous sites refer to this show as a comedy. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 21:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. We follow RS. Calling this "drama" alone is misleading. Bondegezou (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I've come across this two or three times doing recent changes patrolling. I looked into it, and apparently (not having watched it myself), it's not particularly a comedy. It just has a larger-than-usual helping of comedic elements for a sci-fi show. This review seems to sum it up:

"This is the part that will immediately perplex most viewers, who will undoubtedly tune in to The Orville — a heavily advertised show from the creator of Family Guy — expecting a comedy that sends up space show tropes and lets MacFarlane do his dick-joke thing. But The Orville isn’t interested in being that at all, instead swerving between plodding sincerity and sporadic MacFarlane-style snark so aimlessly that the show might as well be walking in drunken circles. " and;

"The Orville is not, as it turns out, the Galaxy Quest-style spoof Fox has been selling in its ads. In fact, The Orville isn’t particularly funny at all, both by design and accidental ineptitude. Instead, it’s a bizarrely straight-up homage to Star Trek that can’t seem to admit as much."

So I can see where the anons taking the comedy genre out if it are coming from, assuming the reviews are on the spot (there's more reviews saying the same thing, including one linked in that one). I'm not saying the issue is settled (I'd have to watch an episode or two and do a thorough analysis of the reviews, instead of just the quick read I've done so far before I pick a side), but the claim "this is not a comedy" seems to be a defensible position. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Having watched the first episode I can now say with complete confidence that I have no fucking clue what genre this is supposed to be. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Has this been resolved? I thought we'd settled on sci-fi drama, and that although it contained some elements of comedy that didn't make it a comedy. Since the article was unlocked recent anon edits have already changed the genre to sci-fi comedy drama.

In the words of the MacFarlane himself: “We really do see it as a sci-fi comedic drama,” MacFarlane told reporters at the Television Critics Association press tour.

That seems like a reasonable source but the opinion of the author isn't an absolute answer. Then again actually being funny isn't an absolute requirement for something to be in the comedy genre either.

I'm happy to go along with whatever the consensus might be but I'm not clear if there actually is any consensus. -- 109.78.200.56 (talk) 03:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure MacFarlane thinks it's "sci-fi comedic drama" but then he probably thinks Family Guy is funny. To be fair, The Orville is funnier than Family Guy but to me it's more sci-fi drama with comedic elements, which seems to be what third party sources are saying. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Pending Revisions Protection

Does anyone know why the article has Pending Revisions Protection? I've been editing Wikipedia for a decade, and this is the first time I've encountered it. It seems really clunky, and if there's a problem with edits to this page, maybe a different form of protection could address it? --DavidK93 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Click on the lock icon to get a generic explanation. It really doesn't take much more than someone requesting it for an article to get locked, or semi protected. I'm surprised you haven't seen it before if you've been using English language Wikipedia for a long time. Flagged edits are preferable to an article being completely locked, which to my mind goes against "the Encyclopedia anyone can edit" but the usual reasons are persistent vandalism or even just well intentioned edits that go against established wikipedia policy (like providing proper reliable sources). I'm not entirely sure why the article was locked but I do know this article is receiving a lot of edits from MacFarlane fans who annoyed that the critics panned the show. -- 109.79.55.12 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Checked the history and the article was locked by User:Oshwah due to unsourced or poorly sourced content. There was a lot of back and forth over what genre this show actually is so it could just as easily have been about that. -- 109.79.55.12 (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. This is why I threw a silver lock on this article. However, this does not restrict any kind of editing to its content - it only requires that changes from anonymous users and non-confirmed accounts be reviewed before they are visible to the general audience. Other than that, there are no restrictions applied toward anybody regarding the ability to edit the article and its content. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes was introduced about 5 years ago as an alternative to semi-protection to allow newly registered and anonymous editors to make productive changes to articles while stopping vandalism and other undesirable edits. Semi-protection stops all newly registered and anonymous editors from editing so it's not a better option. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:15, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RT and Metacritic audience scores

We've included them on a number of other pages. If anyone other than the IP wants them removed, it's time to speak up. Or if the IP or anyone else has a good reason why they should be excluded, I'm all ears. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read the usual ABC, FOX, NBC, CW, CBS TV show pages. Also, it's two different people who care enough to keep this page in order. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SELFPUB and WP:DUE. Now that we've both made suggestions of dubious merit, try making an actual argument. The edits you keep making won't go live until someone approves them. I'm a pending changes reviewer and I will be quite happy to approve them as soon as someone makes a decent case for why we should exclude them. Point me to an noticeboard discussion, or hell, even a discussion on an article where the participants concluded that the audience scores were undue. That's all I'm asking for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm giving you valid advice. Read the reception sections for shows on these networks. You'll notice any well maintained page does not include audience scores. Since this is a FOX show take a glance at Lethal Weapon, Lucifer and Gotham. If you would please stop obstructing my attempts to keep the reception area in order it would be greatly appreciated. 82.15.11.92 (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I haven't obstructed anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, there's this which also assigns a positive audience reception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile this on-wiki search shows that there are quite a few film/television shows that document audience reception. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

First I'd be totally okay with you including the IndieWire article, it is a reliable source and it is using the ratings information (another reliable source) to comment. You could even include prose explanation of the ratings without using Indiewire so long as you are careful to avoid original research or synthesis, that's a reasonable way to show audience response too. I've been waiting for someone to actually do that but a 50% drop in the key demographic made me think the ratings indicated the audiences response wasn't all that positive once viewers got past the first few episodes (most critics would have done their reviews based on having seen 3 episodes).
At the moment I think this article with one negative review and one positive review gives undue weight to the positive when this show was panned by critics.
I don't think WP:SELFPUB applies and other stuff exists is not a very convincing argument. (Audience response in film articles definitely excludes user voted web polls and generally relies on information from polling companies such as Cinemascore, similar to how TV articles rely on Nielsen ratings.) I'm in agreement with the IP Editor 82.* and I don't think any properly maintained TV article actually allows user voted web polls but I don't mind going to Project TV for confirmation. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how I failed to see this earlier but WP:TVRECEPTION states: This means that IMDb, TV.com, and the other similar websites that give "fan polls" are not reliable sources of information.

Maybe you still think that is trumped by WP:SELFPUB? Please clarify.

Also the specific edit you approved recently is particularly bad bad not good, as it fails to even make clear that it is talking about the user votes and not the critic scores, so even if you do keep the user scores it needs to be rewritten to make it clear what the editor was attempting to say. -- 109.76.159.233 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, yes; policy trumps the manual of style every time, no question. But it doesn't matter, because an MOS is good enough reason for me to get behind excluding, and you'll notice I haven't reverted. In the future, you should not continue to revert, even a second time when a discussion is ongoing. Instead, the change being discussed should be left alone until the discussion is complete. You might find this surprising, but many editors tend to make a point of allowing themselves to be swayed by persuasive arguments.

P.S. Don't critique an "other stuff exists" argument after you repeated an "other pages don't do it, so this one shouldn't" argument twice. They're the same damn argument, just from different directions. ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

referants

Episode #4 is reimagining story of
Dimension X radio theatre - 1950-11-26 episode #31 "Universe"
Dimension_X_1950-11-26__31_Universe.mp3
that was itself based on Robert A. Heinlein novel "Orphans of the Sky"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.59.211 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I was reminded of For the World Is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky and The Return of the Archons from TOS -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

It is unlikely that details specific to episode 4 will be included on this page. It doesn't look like there is enough interest in this show for Wikipedia editors to create pages for individual episodes, where such details might be appropriate. Your comments are interesting but they are original research and if you wanted to include them you would need to find some third party reviews that compare the episode to existing science fiction. There isn't much point listing other possible references. -- 109.78.252.53 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

USS Orville ships stats

Where would the stats on the ship be added?
For example the ship is 386.08 meters long
[1600 scale, 9.5 inch model].
(http://fantastic-plastic.com/orville_model.html)
50.70.234.111 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Nowhere. It's non-notable trivia. The figure you've provided is also incorrect. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I would not expect that level detail in Wikipedia but I figure there is probably a Wikia specific to The Orville ... and there is http://orville.wikia.com/wiki/The_Orville_Wiki -- 109.79.184.125 (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Trival or Precedent ship lengths?

Your flippant dismissal isn't of me, I was quoting the official model maker's measurements, so your flippant dismissal is of the official model makers. Also your arrogant presumption that it's trivial is negated by the precedent made by other famous starships like the USS Enterprise - "Length 288.646 metres (947.00 ft)". You have a lot of editing to do if your going to vandalize all those other articles to remove the "trivial" lengths quoted there in.
50.70.234.111 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a List of fictional spacecraft and perhaps it would be appropriate to add more information about The USS Orville to that page.

Wikipedia makes it very easy to delete things, but much harder to add things. It is deeply flawed in many ways. (Like people deleting comments on a talk page expressing sympathy with your frustration. I'm reposting a rephrased version of what I wrote before, even though for the most part it is not specifically about the Orville, it is a relevant response to your comment and an honest attempt to explain how you might get the changes you want into this article or another relevant article.) In general if you are unhappy about a deletion you can at least force editors to follow their own simple rules and insist they explain the deletion with an edit summary or on the Talk page.

Wikipedia aims to be an encyclopedia, and things should be added based on merit but popularity is still a factor. For example Star Trek is very popular and has many articles, articles about the tv show, the movies, the franchise the individual characters and the fictional worlds and technologies, so there are many places where it is entirely appropriate to add details. The Orville is not so popular yet, and as this article is essentially an article about just another tv show that happens to have a space ship, it doesn't seem entirely appropriate to add details about the ship yet. Wikipedia has many rules and selective enforcement is a problem but Wikipedia is also inconsistent and no one is likely to go on a campaign deleting technical details about star ships from Wikipedia even though they were quick to revert your attempt to add them here.

Wikipedia tries to have reliable sources. Even if it is official as you say, it is difficult to know if the reference you gave is a reliable source, and checking it requires more effort than removing it but the bigger problem and I think main reason your change was rejected was probably that it didn't seem particularly notable. If the article had a larger production section that went into greater detail about the world and the technology then specific details about the size of the ship would seem more relevant in that context. Or if there was an article for USS Orville (currently a redirect back to this page) it would be appropriate there, but starting a whole new page for it could be difficult.

So yeah, it is difficult to add things to Wikipedia. It is difficult to fight against the tide that makes it so easy for other editors to push back against changes. It probably shouldn't be so difficult but if you keep working at it and create a larger context you can probably get those details included if you want to make the effort, but it will require a lot of work to find the most appropriate place or create the necessary context for those details it to become more relevant. -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Trivial - Mention of the ship length in this article would be trivial. The figure quoted is dubious, coming from a site that seems to be selling the models and not from the program's official website. I'll also note that the length provided is incorrect. The website specifies a model length of 9.5" at 1:1400 scale, not 1:1600 scale, so the actual length would be 337.82m, not 386.08m as specified by the IP editor. However, at such a scale, a very trivial difference in actual length of the model could result in a full scale difference of several metres from that once scaled up. We'd need a full scale size from the studio before it could be considered to be a credible value. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
• Trivial - I would wait to see if the show make it to a second season and maybe even a third, before worring about creating pages of the ship, the characters like Star Trek has, (however, I do like the show :) ). The Orville is not famous yet, in short. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't much matter how popular or how well established the show is, obscure British tv show Hyperdrive (TV series) (another space ship run by fairly ordinary people) only ran for 12 episodes and it includes a small subsection explaining details about the ship. The problem is finding good sources and making a big enough edit that others won't rush to revert the changes. It would take a lot of work to do a proper section or a whole article on the ship, but you could create a sub-page from your userpage and gradually build it there without interference. You'd need to find sources talking about the design (it is only CGI not a model or a mix of both as far as I know I was wrong the ship both model and CGI (short video)) and who designed it, there must be something saying what inspired the shape etc. Getting images approved is always a hassle too, but maybe you can find a press release pack or something (now that I think of it an image of the ship, and images of the cast would be a good improvement to this article if anyone is familiar with how to get through that system). -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The promotional image at the top of this spoilertv article shows both the ship and the cast. It might even be a suitable image for the Infobox. An image of the cast from a convention would be ideal (since they are often Creative Commons licensed to begin with) but it might be possible to get one of the early promotional press release images of the Orville cast through the approval process.

You hardly ever see it used in articles but Template:External media might be another way to indirectly add important images such as an image of the cast to the article until such time as freely licensed images become available.

I'm getting further offtopic but I do think an image of the ship would substantially improve the article and make it easier to then have a section describing the ship. -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Better information about the ship from FX guide.

The process (and this quote will need to be paraphrased): "The practical model work was done for the season in one initial major models shoot. The material was then used and reused throughout the 13 part series in much the way it was in the original Star Trek: The Next Generation."

Various names are mentioned, not sure if "Favreau's senior collaborators" are important or if the names of the VFX people should be mentioned, or if the previs specialist should be mentioned.

The Offical Youtube channel for The Orville includes a short video where MacFarlane talks briefly about the production design and about not wanting things to be dark. The Production Design which was done by Stephen J. Lineweaver, the video is called Designing the Future]. If I understand correctly Lineweaver designed the set, so essentially the ship interiors. An article from USA Today briefly quotes Lineweaver saying "the future can't be all dark and noir"

The ship is based on a sketch by MacFarlane.

Hopefully we can avoid too much discussion and instead improve the article, and maybe my comments will encourage someone to expand the production section and write more about the ship design, the model work, the CGI, and the set design. I'm not going to do it though (not anytime soon at least), I've spent enough time on it already. -- 109.79.120.129 (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is all great for production but the OP is concerned about the length of the ship, hence the title "Trival or Precedent ship lengths?", not that he's been clear about what he expects from this RfC. The production aspect, which is reasonably important, is not the subject of the RfC. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay so, to directly respond to the RFC, until there is a section of the article that actually talks about the ship then the dimensions of the ship are not relevant or "trivial" if you want to phrase it that way.

I think it is all beside the point of making a better encyclopedia and that's why I think it would better to avoid the problem and instead improve the article to the point where it the information could be included. (but as Aussie said the source is not good either.) Very often good presentation and proper context is the only difference between what is so often dismissed as "trivia" and any other production information. To label something as trivia is POV. -- 109.76.241.81 (talk) 03:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)