Talk:The Mandalorian/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Werner Herzog's character's name revealed

Werner Herzog is playing The Client: https://comicbook.com/starwars/2019/10/29/star-wars-the-mandalorian-spoilers-werner-herzog-character-trailer-2/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.44.184 (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Nick Nolte's character confirmed as an Ugnaught

EW has confirmed Nick Nolte's character is an Ugnauht named Kuill: https://ew.com/tv/2019/10/28/the-mandalorian-new-character-posters/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.44.184 (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Bill Burrs character on this page

It appears to be incorrect. I don’t think this character name has been revealed yet. I was going to correct it but the page is locked now. Ndurell (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

"Baby Yoda" redirect

Currently Baby Yoda redirects here, but the article has no mention of Baby Yoda. Either the redirect should be removed, or the article should explain what Baby Yoda is and mention Baby Yoda in the intro. Mgnbar (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is a reliable source that apparently discusses Baby Yoda: Ars Technica/Wired. Disclaimer: I haven't read it. Mgnbar (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Baby Yoda is a meme that has arisen due to the series. Its pertinent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Intro

In opening paragraph, should read "The show stars Pedro Pascal in titular role" , instead of "The show stars Pedro Pascal." 02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Newsworthyfacts (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Lun Esex (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

space Western

I think you should lower case Western because it's kinda weird to have a capital W with a lower case s for space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.151.27.25 (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the word "Western" is properly capitalized. It's used this way for other Western subgenres and in the wikilinked Space Western article. Lun Esex (talk) 09:00, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Lone Wolf and Cub

The series reminded me of Lone Wolf and Cub. IGN published an article How The Mandalorian's Plot Twist Evokes a Classic Manga Series saying as much. Also CBR [1]. Might be worth adding to the article. -- 109.79.181.75 (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't make that connection at first, but that is so spot on. Thanks for providing sources. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

The Mandalorian allegedly took place 5 years after The Return of the Jedi although it does not have any on-screen dialogue that states anything other than it happened after the fall of the empire. MandalorianDidNotHappen5YearsAfter (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Favreau has said that The Mandalorian is set five years after the fall of the Empire in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983) and 25 years before the rise of the First Order, the authoritarian regime that is firmly in control of the galaxy when Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015) begins."(source) The creator of the show said this. End of story.--TheVampire (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done Melmann 22:27, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it was after I did it. :) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Instead of individual episode articles...

...why not just a reception column in the episode list table? There's not much else to put on individual episode articles other than snippets of quotes from reviewers. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added {{Television Rotten Tomatoes scores}} to the reception section so we can merge back all the individual episode articles since they only contain the plot and the Rotten Tomatoes score for that episode. - Brojam (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Any edit not providing a reliable source for verification will be removed. Please do not add information without providing evidence in the form of a reliable source. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Um, why would sources be required for character names *after* an episode airs? It would fall under WP:COMMONSENSE then. Rusted AutoParts 05:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

In those instances when someone adds a name of some minor character who's identity wasn't provided in the episode or credits. SW fans are infamous for doing this sort of thing. Locke Cole is absolutely right; source everything. In the case of plot summaries, it depends largely upon consensus; everything else requires reliable sourcing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Nothing is being made up though. I’m looking at the end credits on the Disney+ app right now. Horatio Sanz is credited as Mythrol. Brian Posehn is credited as Speeder Pilot, and Emily Swallow is credited as Armorer. Those are not fan created names. Rusted AutoParts 05:55, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Perfect. So it shouldn't be a problem to add a source for those before adding the names. I'm not doing the work for editors blindly adding content without sources, WP:SOFIXIT. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

What a rude response. You honestly expect a source to exist to solely confirm a character name? It’s why we refer to the end credits, because as I said it enters COMMONSENSE. The issue was with random editors adding unconfirmed names to characters that haven’t debuted yet, most notably with Bill Burr. However it has been demonstrated the names can be proven with the end credits, a source is not required. Rusted AutoParts 06:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Maybe I am just guessing, but I think its a fair bet that the pilot's name is not Speeder Pilot, right? Anyhoo, a lot of the non-main cast doesn't need to be in the article; only three eps have aired and we don't even delineate who's main cast and who's recurring until after several (read: four) episodes. There are a lot of unknowns, ans we all know there are folk willing to fill in the blanks. Remember the first ep, and how fanboyz went apeshit because they thought Boba Fett was alive based on a 1-second view of yet another Mandalorian in the shadowy background?

That's what we're trying to avoid here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s what needs sourcing, not a guest spot character name that is easily found in the end credits. And I don’t think it really matters whether the speeders name is Speeder Pilot, it’s how he was credited. Rusted AutoParts 06:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're resisting having sources. It's not like WP:V is a policy or anything. In recent times I've adopted a "kill on sight" attitude when it comes to unsourced additions. I used to take the time to try and find a source, but it's far easier to remove it and have it omitted until someone is willing to actually add it properly. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

“Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing”. All I’m saying, I’ve sourced the known names now, so this shouldn’t continue being an issue. Rusted AutoParts 06:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

From the linked in-a-nutshell: Editing Wikipedia is all about making improvements, not following rules. However, WP:IAR should not be used as a reason to make unhelpful edits. Adding names with no proof in the form of a source is unhelpful. My choices as someone who has this watchlisted boil down to: 1) Do nothing. 2) Remove it. 3) Go and try and find a source for the addition, and in some cases, waste my time because it was some made-up name/cast member. I used to do 3, I don't really see 1 as an option, and now I do 2. Thank you for finding a source. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

One could say that’s just as unhelpful as editors adding fake names. Didn’t take me long to cite those three at all. Rusted AutoParts 15:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I am sure that someone has brought this up before, but how important is that speeder pilot going to be, six episodes from now? Can we cite it? Sure. Should we include it in the article? Probably not, as their role wasn't all that important, either in the plot for the episode and the likely trajectory of the season or series. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should do a thing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

The point remains that film and television episode credits are valid primary sources for plain facts like the names of roles in that work. No other outside source is ever needed. Period.

That said, do we need to include a list of every single guest star? No, that's trivial overkill. But that's an editorial decision about content, not one based on a misreading of sourcing policy. oknazevad (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

You're half right, and half wrong. While primary sources are acceptable under very specific circumstances, secondary sources are still preferred because it shows just how relevant the actual information is that a third party would bother reporting on it. Which circles back to your concern over every guest star being listed: as it will likely be harder to find reliable secondary sources that list every crufty guest star, these should be omitted. Also, to bring it all together: when I wrote what I wrote above, none of the guest stars had a source provided, not even the episode credits. Now we're at least seeing some sourcing, even if it's not ideal IMO. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No, primary sources are preferred for facts of cast and credits, same as the plot summary. The work itself, which can be verified just by viewing the work, is the source for those items and doesn't need any outside source.

Again, this isn't a sourcing issue. It's an issue of due weight given to minor details. That is purely an editorial call, not a matter of sourcing. Now, you are right, that seeing something commented on in outside writings does inform that editorial decision as to whether or not it should be included. But we don't need to cite those writings as sources as they're not being used to eatablish the facts, the credits are. oknazevad (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, there was NO sourcing before (not even episode number). Now there is, which is a significant improvement over what we had before (names and actors being dropped in with no easy way to go about verifying them). —Locke Cole • t • c 17:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Title Card /Logo of the show

There been an issue going on with the logo. As per MOS:TV we can use the logo from promotional art. There are many series pages which uses logo of the logo in the infobox. But Alex for some reason is against using the official logo shared by Disney plus on their websites. You people can compare both of them and decide what's better for the page. Attaching both of them for reference. Alex wants to use this File:The Mandalorian logo.jpg I have edited to this which he revertedFile:The Mandalorian Logo.png. Kindly share your thoughts. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I side with using the official logo. I am not sure why this user doesn't want to use the logo. Cardei012597 (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Title cards are preferred per MOS:TV by WP:TV. Earlier this month, the logo was updated to the actual title card, and has been in use since. There are many articles that use the logo, sure, but there are tens of thousands more that use the title card.

Is there also a reason as to why you uploaded another version of the logo at an almost-identical title, instead of uploading it to a sufficiently disambiguated title? Why the almost-identical file name? Why did you also not upload it to the original location as a reupload, instead of a separate upload? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex I have tried to upload in the title card image which you kept reverting, still the extensions of the both files are different and I haven't noticed that I have created a new file for that image. Anyhow I think now you are fine with why I'm using the logo instead of the Title card you were using. So reverting to Logo and per MOS:TV also we can use promotional material which represents the show. Disney+ everywhere using the same logo including the app. So it made sense to use it Wikipedia too. Saichaitanya 8:26, 20 December 2019(IST).

Please do not edit-war over the content, and allow the discussion here to continue this. It may make sense for you, but the status quo is to use the title card as it has for a while now. Given that both are supported by MOS:TV, there exists no reason on why we need to change from the existing version. What Disney+ do is irrelevant; we have our own guidelines, and there is nothing that supports a logo over the existing title card, as thousands of other television articles currently use and have for years. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex Engaging on the editing wars is not my intent in any way. I understand why you are insisting on using the title card. However in all the marketing material the series is marketed as Star Wars:The Mandalorian and I feel I like the logo will make more sense in this case than the Title card as even Star wars will be displayed separately. The official logo gives the way the creators are intended to use in promotional/ Informational usage. As in Wikipedia agenda is to provide info to the people and I feel using the official logo makes sense much more sense for this show. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disney+ has been adding the "hubs/section/company" logos on top of almost all its originals and library contents to help people associate the different titles with their appropriate hubs on the service, but we should be following the logo/titlecard that actually appears in the show. Also, Disney has consistently been calling this show The Mandalorian not Star Wars: The Mandalorian. I've actually yet to see Disney themselves ever call it Star Wars: The Mandalorian. And actually, tv creators usually have very little say in the marketing/promotional material for their shows and if Favreau wanted it to be called Star Wars: The Mandalorian then it would have been clearly named that in the show's titlecard and the Disney sites. - Brojam (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Disney+ may be listing them on the preview posters, however in none of the originals other than The Mandalorian,has the Brand/Segment name's separate card in the episodes. Where as in this case Star Wars card is displayed after Lucasfilm. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

As I addressed on Alex's talk page, articles such as The Simpsons and Friends (television series) use vectors in place of title cards. If WP:TV "prefers" title cards, why is this rule not enforced consistently? What sense does a rule even make at that point? If a high quality vector is available, why not use it? In my opinion, it uses infobox space more efficiently and is more legible. -throast (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Merging of individual episodes

Brojam (talk · contribs) has recently bold redirected individual episodes into the main page stating "notability not established". Notability is established through secondary reliable sources which each individual episode article has multiple of. These are article with multiple secondary reliable sources. This is the flagship series of Disney+ with overwhelming hype and coverage. This is the first live action Star Wars series and is therefore notable, regardless, notability has been established through reliable sources per WP:GNG. I understand the bold redirect, however now that it has been contested the best path if any editor wishes to redirect is through AfD. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 08:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editor, whose words I'd summarize that notability is inherited. Debresser (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I certainly did not say notability is inherited. I said these episodes are notable because of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources therefore passes WP:GNG. Given the significant number of reviews focusing on individual episodes and not the series as a whole, a standalone article is necessary. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 13:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree to switching it back, although the sourcing for the more recent episodes was a little light, so i'm guessing that's where the decisions came in. However, the first 3 episodes have enough sources to warrant notability. The first episode definitely shouldnt be a redirect as it has a lot of coverage. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why every episode needs it's own article!?– Vilnisr ^{T | C} 07:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above editor and Brojam. The episodes do not require their own articles; there is nothing in those articles that cannot be included in this parent article. A singular indivudual "Reception" section in each article does not make an article. The articles are solely being created for a plot dump and to have a "complete set". -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not know why you are ignoring WP:GNG. Most of the singular episode articles pass under WP:GNG. The pages are specific, detailed, and well-sourced. As the first season of most popular shows, the episodes of the first season tend to generate episode pages that have extra details. I suggest following the model outlined and enforced with other pages that follow WP:GNG. The first season's episodes get their own pages, BUT for every following season, only create pages for the 1st and last episode of the seasons. This format has been followed for most television/streaming service series pages. I suggest we look, read, and evaluate WP:GNG and follow the generally accepted format of most television series pages. Cardei012597 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that GNG is only a guideline. This format has been followed for most television/streaming service series pages. Can you back that up at all? Years of editing television articles, and I've never heard of this. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:38, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:Television Episodes, "Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?

Are more sources available? (Do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.)

If the answer to either of these questions is "yes", it is probably better to avoid merging or redirecting. Instead, consider improving it, or offer suggestions for its improvement on the talk page."

Now, for each episode article page, there are many sources available to flesh out the content. Doing basic research, I found more sources. The merge also has a probability of reducing the quality and coherence of the target article. Too much info of developing, casting, writing, and directing for each episode on the Mandalorian page could cause some bloated sections. Deleting and merging tend to be the easier routes of Wikipedia editing, rather than generous, hard work to flesh out each episode page. All the episode pages need is a few Wikipedia volunteers to do some searching online for development information. Some of the episodes may be considered stubs for now, but there is infornation online to improve each page. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your replies correctly. You also didn't answer my question at all; Can you back that up at all? If you've found content, then expand the articles; as of now, nothing exists in those articles that cannot exist in this article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Its Wikipedia, I shouldn't be the only editor adding content to many of the episode articles. Yes, I can add more, plenty more, but why just me? Can I get more editors to help out? Cardei012597 (talk) 23:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Please indent your replies correctly. And please answer my question and provide examples. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your replies are leaning towards WP:Bludgeon, twice berating my formatting and indenting. Second, in response to your question, even if I gave an example, you'll probably brush it off, as you have done with a few of my replies. Third, as proof that you brushed off a reply of mine, you didn't seem to notice when I listed the reasons why the episodes should not be merged. Fourth, since few are willing to help flesh out these episode articles, I must add all of the forthcoming information, by myself, which, in total, will take me about a month to complete. I am just one editor, so the adding of information will take longer than a large group of dedicated wiki volunteers. You can't expect practically one editor to create seven outstanding articles in a couple of days. Give me the proper time, respect, and patience to make the articles as fleshed out as possible. One month. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Then work on them in draft until they are ready for the mainspace (which they are clearly not now). There's absolutely no rush in needing to have these 7 articles in the mainspace now when they are adding absolutely nothing new except for longer plots that are over the limit per WP:TVPLOT anyway. As for your point about not being able to merge all this extra production info into this article, with this article currently having 11kB of readable prose size, it is very far from being "bloated" and if that day does come when the article is too big then it can be split to season articles per MOS:TVSPLIT. As for your statement: The first season's episodes get their own pages, BUT for every following season, only create pages for the 1st and last episode of the seasons. This format has been followed for most television/streaming service series pages. Like Alex, I've also been editing tv articles for many years, following and participating in discussions at WP:TV and WP:MOSTV, and this is definitely not true at all and makes no sense. Your time would be much better spent on trying to improve the production (development, writing, casting, filming) sections of this main article instead. - Brojam (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree, you only have to see how Episode 3 is a page with nothing but Plot and content copy pasted from the main article. There are plenty of articles and reviews about each of the episodes but this page is sorely lacking. I expressed the same sort of concern back when Westworld Season 2 aired but another more experienced editor did a lot of the heavy lifting and got the episode articles up to scratch. I'm not seeing that here. Esuka (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Cardei012597, without giving him proper time or certainly helping him to create a fully flushed articles we are questioning him. All the major Series like GOT etc even Watchmen which recently concluded its run have separate episode pages. The only thing is there should citations for the individual episodes to be notable enough so that we can flush them out properly. Lastly everyone contributing voluntarily so it would be nice if all the editors work in Harmony and not showing the attitude of bossing around. Saichaitanya4496 (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valoem:, may we have your opinion on this recent development? Cardei012597 (talk) 07:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@R9tgokunks:, I would also like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The above pings were clear violations of WP:CANVAS; canvassing has happened here. Very disruptive; this will be noted in future interactions with the above editor. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In all honesty, I believe that some of the editors in this discussion are ignoring certain Wikipedia rules, specifically because the WPs deflate their stance on the episode article pages. I feel that WP:Television Episodes is being ignored. I may be wrong, but I am not noticing a thorough debate on this aspect of the discussion. Personally, I think this discussion needs other editors to fully evaluate this situation, from a non-biased point of view. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• It is clear these individual episodes pass WP:GNG. Regardless, it is also important to look at precedence set from previous shows such as Game of Thrones and Homeland. Each episode had individual articles, this is because when a show gets this popular reviews will be focused not just on the entire series, but individual episodes, therefore allowing each episode to garner significant coverage. This is a live action Star Wars series and it has already received more coverage than GoT or Homeland did at the time those articles were created, therefore articles on individual Mandalorian episodes are preferred if not required. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Can you cite what rules are being ignored? By rules, you clearly mean policies; essays and guidelines are not rules. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Don't make this issue about me. Your comments lean towards WP:Bludgeon and I personally do not feel safe or comfortable discussing this issue with you. You provided questionable reasons to delete these episode pages and you continue to berate and criticize editors on the other side of the argument. I am done discussing this matter with you. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

So, you cannot answer my question at all. So, no rules are being ignored at all, and the articles are not noteworthy enough to exist by themselves. Thank you, for the confirmation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:47, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Episode titles

I'm not sure we should have the subtitles used on here... like "The Child" for Chapter 2 and "The Sin" for Chapter 3. Yes, they are shown in the episodes once they begin playing, but in reality, Disney+ does just label them as "Chapter 1", "Chapter 2", etc, on the selection screen. Futon Critic also labels them this way. Should those titles be removed? Magitroopa (talk) 04:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I concur. Since subtitles are commissioned at the very end of post, there is little in the way of oversight. We can't use them as primary sourcee, imo. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

If they appear on screen in the episode (and they do), then that is a valid primary source to establish them as the episode titles. No need to remove them. oknazevad (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Respectfully, I believe you might be misunderstanding the discussion. We are not discussing the title of the episode; they are provided at the very beginning of the episode.

We are discussing the subtitles for each of the episodes, which are added at the end of post-production and occasionally render mistakes. They are almost always created by third-party contractors for the production studio using software. Therefore, they aren't reliable as a source of information as to the showrunner's intent. Because of that, we determine what was said via consensus editing; if the consensus agrees that 'a' was said, then it goes in the article. If there is no consensus, there it remains outside the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

No, Jack Sebastian, I think you're the one confused. The original question was talking about the episode title/name. That's why they gave examples like "Chapter 2: The Child." This has nothing to do with subtitles/closed captions.

That said, I think we should keep the full title ("Chapter 3: The Sin") as it appears on the screen because that's clearly the intended title by the producers regardless of how they're listed elsewhere. Starforce¹³ 21:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, that being the case, we use the name of the episode as listed. Full stop. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I think the list should acknowledge that Chapter 1 is "The Bounty." It seems unfair that the first chapter doesn't have a title and the rest do. And I remember Chapter 1 having a title while starting the show like everyone else. TVBuff90 (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Is that how the episode is listed on Disney+? -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Disney+ menu right now on my Apple TV and it says "Chapter 1: The Mandalorian".— TAnthony^Talk 21:57, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Moved and updated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I should note that though it's clear in the selection menu, the first episode does not seem to have a chapter card after the series title card, as subsequent episodes do.— TAnthony^Talk 06:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a separate Season 1 Page

I think it would be a good idea to create a page for the first season, any thoughts? SkywalkerEditor (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that a bit like creating in an outline, a section A without a ection B?- Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. We're way ahead of the need for a Season 2 page, so I don't know if we need to begin work on a Season 1 page yet. Especially if most of the content for the series page ends up getting copied over to the Season page. Still, if you really feel the need for a Season 1 article, it might be possible to work on a draft page. --Bold Clone 06:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

when the series takes place

I have recently removed twice a bit (in bold) about how the series takes place before the third trilogy:

"The Mandalorian, also known as Star Wars: The Mandalorian, is an American space Western web television series that premiered on Disney+ on November 12, 2019. Set in the Star Wars universe, the series takes place five years after the events of Return of the Jedi and 25 years prior to the events of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. ¹

To my understanding, the series is set in the post Return of the Jedi sequence. Everything from the series draws upon it. There is no apparent connection between the series and the third trilogy set decades after the events of the series (and, as the trilogy has concluded, it would appear to not have any connection at all). This article is about the Mandalorian series, not the film series.
I guess I could see if the user was seeking to bookend Mandalorian in between the two, but while it feels organic to connect it to the first trilogy, its seems a lot less so to do that for the third. Maybe I am reading too much into the assertion, and so I thought I'd bring it here to discuss the matter.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As the editor who restored this information (although I was not the one to first add it), I would like to pick up the handkerchief and explain why I think this sentence should include chronological information connecting this article to both trilogies. It is rather simple, actually, IMHO. When providing a time-reference, it is always helpful to be as complete as possibly, stating what came before and what came after. Since the lead makes it clear that this series is set in the Star Wars universe, it is perfectly acceptable to reference the third trilogy as well, even if it for obvious reasons of internal chronological consistency it is not mentioned in the series itself. Jack Sebastian seems to suggest in his comment above that we can use only in-series information, while the opposite is true and in writing this encyclopedia we should present broader information, placing the subject of the article in context. That context is the Star Wars universe, including events that took place in it before as well as after the events of this series. The article indeed provides this context, but in this specific case Jack Sebastian opposes that, strangely so and incorrectly IMHO. Debresser (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Debresser. If the show takes place between Episodes 6 and 7, then it only makes sense to include this within the article. We don't need to have this explicitly spelled out within the context of the show. This comes down to the limitations of OR and SYN. An overly-literal interpretation of OR probably precludes including this fact. After all, the show itself makes no reference to the sequel trilogy. Nobody mentions Snoke, Kylo, the First Order or Phasma. Using only the show itself, we cannot establish when the events occur before Episode 7. It would be OR to perform simple math and connect the dots. The problem here is ultimately the interpretation and application of OR and SYN. --Bold Clone 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, simple calculations are not OR per WP:CALC. oknazevad (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

My concern has nothing to do with either OR or SYN. This series is a natural outgrowth of the results of Return of the Jedi; its effects are seen throughout the first season. Apart from the connection to the SW universe via setting, I am not seeing the connection between TM and TFA.

That said, I am not entirely against noting its placement within the strucutre of the films, I guess. Your mileage may vary with others. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I would support keeping the info on the place between Episode 6 and 7. The films are the main canon of the universe, and since it's set between 2, there's enough chance readers may be interested in knowing precisely where between when they are unfamiliar with the precise chronology of the 2 films and they should not need to check out the film articles for this. I don't think we need info on other films or works unless they specifically arise for some reason. I have not watched the series, but I would be surprised if some stuff only known from the later films does not come into it at some stage unless it's cancelled within perhaps 2 seasons or something. However even if nothing does come, I'd still supporting keeping the chronology of the 2 films. Nil Einne (talk) 12:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

darksaber

darksaber should link to Lightsaber#Colors instead of darksaber which is a novel. --MuanN (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the catch, MuanN. The page is currently protected from editing due to edit warring, but when the protection is lifted feel free to correct the link, if no one else has. --Bold Clone 01:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I think the linkage (as well as the removal of the content from the now non-canon novel article) was a good edit. In the same vein, I'd point out that we shouldn't be linking any of this material in contention until we have successfully arrived at a conclusion for the discussion. Attempting to do so would seem like tendentious editing - an attempt to bypass this discussion. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. If people don't know what the Darksaber is, they will want to know what it is. If they want to know what the Darksaber is, then we ought to provide them with a link. --Bold Clone 04:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, if they want to know what the Darksaber is, they can head over to either the Clone Wars or Rebels articles; there is substantial sourcing fromt eh primary sourcing there to point to. This article doesn't have enough information to point to yet. The item hasn't even been named. It isn't a plot point yet. The Mandalorian isn't the place to go looking for information about the Darksaber. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If people watch the end of The Mandalorian, they will see the black-bladed energy weapon. If they see the black-bladed energy weapon, they will probably want to know what that thing is and come to the best place to find out: the Mandalorian article. We can identify the black-bladed energy weapon for them, and point them to the Clone Wars or Rebels articles, but they will not know where to go unless we first identify the black-bladed energy weapon for them. The Mandalorian is the place to go to looking for information about the mysterious black-bladed weapon appearing at the end of the The Mandalorian. Anything beyond that and we can point them to the Clone Wars, Rebels, or Lightsaber articles. --Bold Clone 18:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Exactly! people are watching The Mandalorian so they're going to come looking here first to know what that was. Because, why would they go to Clone Wars first if they don't know what the object is and that it's linked to Clone Wars? So, yeah we need to mention/link it here. Starforce¹³ 19:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Do we need to devote a whole paragraph to it? No, certainly not in the plot summary. Detail should be saved for its section on the lightsaber page. I would even be fine with removing the phrase "a Mandalorian artifact" from the summary as well, since all we really need to do is provide a link. But people are going to watch the show, they are going to want to know what the item is. The most responsible action we can take is identifying it as the darksaber and pointing users to the right page for more info: the lightsaber article. --Bold Clone 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

You keep forgetting the basic problem; you don't know that it is the Darksaber. Neither do the speculative sources.

The one group of people who do know (cast, crew, studio), haven't mentioned it. Like, at all. Absolutely correct me if I am wrong and someone from this vital group has said something.

You would think that something that is intrinsic to an understanding of the episode and series would be mentioned at least once in the entire eight episodes, right? But no. It is not. Therefore, talking about it is both UNDUEWEIGHT and TRIVIAL. Simply calling the item what it was, "a black cutting sword" offers it the appropriate weight it deserves at this time.

If it becomes a major plot device in next season, then it does. Unless anyone here has a time machine, we don't anticipate what will be come important

I do agree that the whole 'Mandalorian artifact' is unsupportable. For all we know, the Empire might have mass-produced these can-openers as gifts for the general staff. It could be a vibroblade. It could be Stormbringer.

If we must make a series/episode impact-appropriate mention of the item, create an Analysis section. That way, all the sourcing can be used to suggest that the item might very well be the Darksaber. It most certainly does not belong in the plot summary. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Good catch. I agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KasiaNL (talk • contribs) 07:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Kite, could you also add the appropriate padlock-symbol to the article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the redirect Darksaber (fictional weapon) was removed here, as it linked to the proper location for the topic, Lightsaber#Colors (and per WP:NOTBROKEN this is a proper use of a redirect), whereas Darksaber is the unrelated novel. The edit warring seems to be occurring over whether or not the Darksaber should be mentioned, but the link should still be corrected while that discussion is ongoing.— TAnthony^Talk 21:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: Am I missing something? Why are you removing this redirect? As I noted above, Darksaber is a novel unrelated to the lightsaber.— TAnthony^Talk 17:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I agree with an admin undoing my (now protected) edit. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

(@ OP) Done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 January 2020

In accordance with MOS:HAT, please change

{{About|the television series|the fictional group of people|Mandalorian|the titlular character|The Mandalorian (Star Wars character)}}

to

{{About|the television series|the fictional group of people|Mandalorian|the titlular character|The Mandalorian (Star Wars character){{!}}The Mandalorian (''Star Wars'' character)}}.

— Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"The Mandalorian (Star Wars)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The Mandalorian (Star Wars). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

italicization IAW MOS:HAT

In the manual of style's list of "Examples of proper use" of hatnotes, it's shown that words otherwise italicized in prose should have that same formatting applied in the hatnote. After I applied such here, Alex 21 (talk · contribs) says that "the guideline does not state that de-italicizing is a must-require." The guideline itself says that it "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Since Alex 21 did not, can anybody else help me understand why the MOS shouldn't be applied to this article, specifically? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I think the piping and the {{{!}}} special-character escape just to italicize a phrase in a hatnote is an unneeded, overkill that makes the source code unnecessarily messy with no real value gain. Sure, in cases like these, that's where common sense can override the standard recommendation. Starforce¹³ 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I mistaken in thinking that "Star Wars", as a fiction franchise, should always be italicized (like we would The New York Times, USS Thrush, Psychostar World, and History of the Peloponnesian War)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The example at WP:ITHAT seems to suggest that links which would be italicized in mainspace should be italicized in wiki markup, knowing that the template will nullify the italicization. I presume this is so the link will stand out from the rest of the hatnote (the guideline doesn't explain), but it's a bit odd. However, this example is problematic on a broader scale in that the link illustrated, Caprona alida, is normally italicized in its entirety, whereas in the link we're discussing here, only part of the disambiguation is italicized. So with Fourthords following the guideline, the link renders as The Mandalorian (Star Wars character) in the hatnote, which in my opinion adds too much emphasis to the proper noun element of the disambiguation, and frankly, just looks weird. I'm not sure that it's helpful to debate the interpretation here, so perhaps the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote can be reopened and these nuances worked out.— TAnthony^Talk 20:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)