Talk:Velma (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

"Early and final designs for the main characters" in Production sources back to unverified Twitter account

I just followed the path backwards to figure out where this image came from. It looks legit if you just go to the image's info page and look at the summary, but if you follow it, the actual "concept art" is simply from a non-verified Twitter account. Thus, its veracity, significance, and copyright status is questionable. I'll leave it up to someone else to decide what to do, as I'm not investing the effort in figuring out the policies on this, but I would assume, as is, it is not suitable for inclusion (even though it looks nice). Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 08:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I gather, it is not official concept art. Per the artist: "I didn't work on Velma but did some VERY early concepts for it a couple years ago. Likely super exploratory phase -- they went in a different direction. Dunno if I can share the actual designs but I always really liked the silhouettes I landed on so have a look at these blobs".(emphasis mine) It should be removed. Mike Allen 14:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should be removed, but because it fails the
WP:TRIVIA. If we wouldn't discuss in the article text how this early concept contributed to the final art (which I don't think we should) then there's no reason to display a non-free image of it. I'll wait for more opinions before removing it though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with all the above, but don't want to be BOLD and remove it, lest I irritate regular editors of this article. I do not believe the CBR citation as is now in place is sufficient to establish that it warrants inclusion. I also agree with the argument that it does not substantially contribute to a reader's understanding of the topic (as well as that it is akin to fan art). That is all. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur to remove it as it is from an unverified Twitter account and fails WP:NFCC. — YoungForever(talk) 05:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2023

Change "On February 13, 2023, Channing Dungey, the chairwoman of Warner Bros. Television Group, announced that a second season is in development.[1]"

To "A second season was rumored to be in development; but nobody associated with Warner Bros. Television Group has made such a claim. [2]"

Even though Screen Rant cited EIDR, EIDR has no season two entry; and the Velma series entries were modified on 2023-01-18T11:57:06Z

References ---> https://screenrant.com/velma-season-2-renewed-hbo-max-report/ and https://ui.eidr.org/search/results/9355f9e571a94b439586c20b5420f5b0 Soldier397 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ White, Peter (February 13, 2023). ""Hard Funny": Channing Dungey Breaks Down Warner Bros TV's Comedy Business As Studio Sets Up Amazon Projects From Mindy Kaling & 'Hacks' Duo". Deadline. Retrieved February 13, 2023. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. ^ White, Peter (February 13, 2023). ""Hard Funny": Channing Dungey Breaks Down Warner Bros TV's Comedy Business As Studio Sets Up Amazon Projects From Mindy Kaling & 'Hacks' Duo". Deadline. Retrieved February 13, 2023. {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link)
 Not done: This sentence appears to have been removed entirely. Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Audience reception isn’t allowed

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.

Sorry but per the guidelines of the

WP:TVMOS, including the audience reception is NOT allowed, regardless of how cited it may be.You can include audience ratings but not the reception of the audience. Wolfquack (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Please see the multiple discussions on this talk above. Audience ratings/reviews are allowed only when they are discussed by reliable sources, audience ratings/reviews are not allowed when they are directly from IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings/reviews, or Metacritic user scores themselves. — YoungForever(talk) 03:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@YoungForever Audience ratings/reviews are allowed only when they are discussed by reliable sources,
Sorry but no.
“Information about audience viewership should use reliably sourced official ratings data, such as Nielsen ratings (US), Numeris (CAN), BARB (UK), OzTAM (AU)”
Note the key words: viewership and ratings. Not reviews or response. That’s a pretty huge difference. Even if reviews are the same as ratings, none of the sources talking about the audience response are from Nielsen ratings, Numeris, BARB, etc. Case closed. IDK how this got passed the TV:MOS guidelines. Wolfquack (talk) 04:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are clearly misinterpreting
MOS:TVRECEPTION, but you also clearly do not have the consensus to remove the entire section about audience response clearly supported by reliable sources. Please actually read the multiple closed discussions above. — YoungForever(talk) 05:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You are looking at the part of TVRECEPTION dealing with viewers (which for a streaming series, likely won't have any). The relevant part about audience reception (which appears to be the crux of this issue), is covered one paragraph above the one you were looking at in TVRECEPTION, and accurately explained as to why the content can stay here by Alex 21 below. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not reporting audience reception from user-generated websites, that would be disallowed per
WP:USERG
and in that case, I would support the removal of it. However, what this article is reporting on is the audience reception as critically discussed by/from secondary and reliable sources, which meets Wikipedia's core policies on verifiability and reliability; given that the topic has been widely reported by the core foundation of Wikipedia, it is therefore notable.
This is actually supported by
MOS:TVAUDIENCE: Unless quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary, do not quote comments from members of the general public; in this case, we are indeed quoting author(s) from reliable source(s) citing public commentary, and we are not quoting comments from members of the general public. Regardless, policies trump guidelines and Manuals of Style. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to take this to a wider community and attempt to gain a consensus for it; thus far, you have received no support. -- Alex_21 TALK 13:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
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.

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2023

The Voice cast section's Main portion refers to Velma herself as being bisexual, however this statement does not have a citation attached to it. In the 1st season she does have somewhat of a romantic attraction towards Daphne, and then Norville near the end when she finally listens to his VMs (voicemails), however whether or not these are feelings of bisexuality has not yet been flat-out said in the series itself; Please check if there has been any official word about Velma's sexual orientation in the show.

A bit of a sidenote, the section as a whole seems to've not been rewritten at all since the first 2 episodes premiered, and as a result it kinda paints the characters in outdated/one-note biases. Nunof Yerbizness (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The sentence that says Velma "is portrayed as a bisexual South Asian–American" does not provide a reliable source about the bisexual aspect, parts of the characters' descriptions that say such things as Fred being "Velma's crush", how Norville "frequently brings up how much he hates drugs", Daphne being "Velma's former best friend", that she "hopes to discover her biological parents", and referring to Victoria Jones with present tense are outdated and mostly based on just the first two episodes, and most sentences in the Supporting section don't end with periods. Nunof Yerbizness (talk) 00:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -Lemonaka‎ 01:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Change "She is partially modeled after Kaling and is portrayed as a bisexual South Asian–American." to "She is partially modeled after Kaling and is portrayed as a bisexual[citation needed] South Asian–American." Nunof Yerbizness (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Velma_(TV_series)&oldid=1217537252"