Talk:The Witcher (TV series)

Television C‑class Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History note

I did this:-

Going to remove "Multiple issues" for now

The entry is clearly not perfect, it is a stub after all, but that is just painting with a too broad brush. For example, the artical does not need "additional citations for verification" it has many sources for a stub. My guess is that the other problems that the editor saw have to do with Twitter as a source. I would argue that WP:TWITTER applies here, the account belongs to the showrunner of the series. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 10:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not all of the templates were necessary, but I’ve re-added {{Primary sources}} since the article relies heavily on Twitter sources. One of the criteria under WP:TWITTER is that an article can’t rely too much on tweets. This article uses six Twitter sources and could use some more secondary sources. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 11:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The problem is that good secondary sources are still quite rare, because the project is in such an early stage of development. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism of Reception Section

Getting considerable vandalism where the Entertainment Weekly review is concerned. While it's a noteworthy addition, we're getting fanboys vandalising the section with personal attacks on the writer, or over-explaining the critic's review. Request for protection may be required if this is to continue. WhoKnew99 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been submitted for semi-protection to prevent vandalism. WhoKnew99 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support not that it really matters at this point. Looks like some single-use accounts, too. -2pou (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If single-use account users become an issue, you can always request that the page protection be upgraded to "extended confirmed". Which would eliminate the issue entirely. Esuka (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a few edits, because it wasn't achieving a balance of accuracy in terms of describing how the show is being received: yes, Wikipedia doesn't allow user-generated reviews (I initially put in a bit about the Rotten Tomatoes audience score, but removed it when I saw the note about it not being allowed) - but the contrast is so notable that failing to mention it at all doesn't provide a context for the show being renewed for a second - and reportedly third - season in spite of those poor reviews. In other words, it wasn't giving the reader enough information. I added in a link to a news article about the showrunner talking about the user reception, plus IMDB's high rating, which appears to be based on a blend of sources. Feel free to overwrite/undo the edits, but please keep in mind that if you don't mention its popularity with audiences at all, the article is misleading.Princess stomper (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The need for baised editing in the audiences rating

Seems that there are a few editors here that cant take an objective outlook on things, regarding them unreliable just because they dont fit their opinion. Like audiences rating , which are put in place to show discrepancies between user and critics review. Calling it unreliable because some reviews could be fake is the same as calling critics reviews unreliable because critics they can be bought or paid off. Azik101 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:USERGEN. Do you know how many times this exact same discussion has happened at dozens, hundreds of other articles? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow Wikipedia's guidelines. User reviews will not be on this page. WhoKnew99 (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex is right. Take for example how Batwoman was review bombed yet people who dislike the show repeatedly cause problems on the main article because they want the audience score there to prove some kind of futile point. Esuka (talk) 19:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batwoman. Star Wars. Captain Marvel. Star Trek Discovery. Doctor Who S12. All the same. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Section

The mixed or average reviews from critics can be deceiving when in reality the audience has reviewed it with great scores over the 8.5 mark on most sites. I believe this should be present in the reception Section as we all know that critics are definitely not representative of what people actually think or how good a show is. Γιαννης Παπαδογκονας (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title Card

Should we be using the first episode's title card or the eighth one, which uses the "wolf pendant sigil" more prevalent in the marketing? I can supply a low-resolution version for that. Supaagekireddo (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point in starting a discussion about it, if you were going to already go ahead with it, without waiting for a reply? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support using the Episode 8 title card. 165.118.1.51 (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, random IP, who's never edited this article or its talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Based on A Question of Price from The Last Wish,(and Sword of Destiny from Sword of Destiny)" The Sword of Destiny part is wrong. Cirilla visits Brokilon twice, the first visit is with Geralt (Sword of Destiny), but the second visit happens after the Attack of Cintra. The scene in the show has to be the second because it happens after the Attack of Cintra. 85.23.239.130 (talk) 00:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The source included after the "based on" text for the fifth episode clearly states the stories that the episode was based on; this includes "A Question of Price" from The Last Wish, and "Sword of Destiny" from Sword of Destiny. The content is reliably sourced. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]