Forum:CT:"Reception" section tweaks

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:"Reception" section tweaks
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support. —spookywillowwtalk 04:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Forwarding Forum:SH:"Reception" section - reasonable limits? from Senate Hall, to amend the WP:LG/OOU:

Original text (narrative works):

Reception discusses response, reaction, and reception to the work, including professional reviews, awards won, sales, and media spotlight. A summary of opinions from fan reviews may also be included in this section. If no such information is available, this section need not be included.

Original text (musical themes):

Reception gives reviews and opinions from critics, as well as information regarding sales performance.

Proposed text (to be adopted to replace both original texts, for consistency):

Reception discusses awards won, sales performance, and ratings information. Response, reaction, and reception to the work by Lucasfilm Ltd. and its employees, including creators who participated in the project's creation, should be included in this section. However, fan reviews and opinions should only be discussed in relation to Star Wars creator's commentary of their contents. If no such information is available, this section need not be included.

The reasoning for this can be found in the SH, and personally, I think pages like Star Wars: The Acolyte do it quite well. Sure, we need to document LFL and creator comments, and statistical information. Information like Awards is also concrete and non-subjective. But, as it is at the moment, in theory, an article would need to document fan review and commentary without limit.

It's just subjective for the most part, and of course if it's like [Creator] responded to [negative review by fan for reason] then that'd still be in there, but only in the context of how it's addressed and not necessarily documenting someone's entire review video(s). This seems like a reasonable mix that keeps the good parts of the section while taking out the bad. And, it'll also make all OOU pages stable enough to hopefully write up some day (since fan reviews are endless, this would not be possible at the moment, technically).—spookywillowwtalk 04:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Support

  1. —spookywillowwtalk 04:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  2. Bonzane10 Bonzane10-Sig 04:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  3. CometSmudge (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  4. I can't emphasis how much I'm glad we're moving on from this. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 06:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  5. Lewisr (talk) 06:23, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  6. Fan26 (Talk) 06:25, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  7. 100% OOM 224 (he/him/they) 09:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  8. Should it instead be Star Wars creators' commentary in that third sentence? (Otherwise, agreed) Zed42 Wolfpack emblem (talk) 11:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  9. SaintSirNicholas (talk) 13:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  10. Tommy-Macaroni (he/they) 14:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  11. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  12. Cade GalacticRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 23:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  13. Wok142 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  14. ThePedantry (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  15. — Commandant Bhatoa (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

  • To Zed's point, will fix that brief typo above upon closing.—spookywillowwtalk 02:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)