Talk:The Expanse (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Don Quixote and Andromeda References

The first series includes references to the novel Don Quixote: Miller and Havelock seem similar to the characters of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, while Julie Mao is clearly Dulcinea; Holden also exhibits traits similar to Don Quixote; other references include Don Quixote's horse Rocinante. Also the myth of Andromeda is referenced (In the last two episodes of the first season, Julie Andromeda Mao appears naked and bound to the wall, just as Andromeda was chained naked to a rock in Greek mythology). Reference is also made to the classic book The Canterbury Tales (Holden is originally a crewmember of the Canterbury). I think it would be good if these references could somehow be mentioned in the article. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales is a stretch, Canterbury is also a city in England and one in New Zealand as well. It does have a pod called the Knight though, but calling it a direct link to The Canterbury Tales is pure speculation.

The Don Quixote one however is much more interesting. In the novels Don Quixote is a huge inspiration on Holden and it's mentioned multiple times. You've also missed a reference in the series to it, the windmills by the family farm which aren't mentioned in the books but is a nice touch in the show. Having said that though I think it would be difficult to write it into the article unless we have good references backing them up. While it's mentioned in the books the show isn't the books so it would be out of place to directly compare them in that manner. However the show does make a lot of reference to it, we just need reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dont put the same genre repeatedly

Either leave the genre there or put the subgenre there. Don't repeat things over. It's preferable if you put subgenre per WP:SPECIFICLINK. But alas if there's too many subgenre to cover then leave it as primary genre to avoid overlisting.--Taeyebar 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Science fiction and space opera are not the same genre. LoMStalk 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Judging by the review aggregator Metacritic, most critics are referring to this series as science fiction and drama, not space opera or mystery. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, multiple sources, as well as the producers, are calling it a Space Opera. relevant links: THR, Deadline, IndiWire, Variety, New York Times, Forbes. LoMStalk 22:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources call it science fiction, not space opera. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again. Sources are also calling it a Space Opera. I've provided links to reputable outlets to confirm this. (I'm not denying that they're calling it science fiction either.) LoMStalk 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: So I'm not sure I agree that The Expanse actually is space opera, but if we accept that it is and you look at the definition of space opera, the very first line is that it's a subgenre of science fiction (which definitely fits with my overall understanding of it). So all space opera is science fiction (but not all science fiction is space opera). So listing both, as you seem to want to do, seems pretty clearly redundant... if The Expanse is space opera, then we don't need to also say it's science fiction. Am I missing something? (personally I'd prefer to list it as simply science fiction but if that's not sufficient, then we shouldn't be listing both) —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick:
FACT
1) Sources are calling it both science fiction and space opera. 2) There isn't any definitive guideline regarding genres, but what we know is that they must be sourced.

OPINION
While it's true that the show's space opera, it also covers stuff that you will only come across the parent genre. But since this falls under original research (on my part), let's just go with what the sources are saying.

LoMStalk 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Uhm... here's a pretty reputable source saying space opera is science fiction. If some sources are calling it science fiction, and some others are calling it space opera, then some of the sources are just not being as specific and that doesn't mean the article should include both terms. If some sources referred to person X as a "human" and some referred to them as a "woman", you wouldn't require every listing of person X to include "person X is a human woman" because "woman" implies the term "human" and to constantly say "human woman" would be extremely redundant. Just like "woman" implies "human" (all women are human), so too does "space opera" imply "science fiction" (all space operas are science fiction). This is WP:COMMON —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting "science fiction space opera television series" in the lead looks absurd. What Joeyconnick says above is entirely correct. I also agree with him that this series should be listed as science fiction. The majority of sources call it science fiction, leaving out space opera. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not common practice to put the main genre in the lead, while a sub genre is listed in the infobox. The main genre belongs first in the infobox, possibly followed by others if warranted. Check other articles. I'm not aware of any that leave the main genre out of the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast photographs

There's been disagreement about whether to include photographs of the principal cast, as seen in this revision.

I'm of the view that the images should be included, as a service to readers: People will want to know what the cast look like, - e.g, in order to be able to put a name to the characters seen on screen. To do so, clicking on each character article would be much less convenient. Also, the photographs give an immediate impression of the diversity of the cast. Finally, they do visually enliven the otherwise text-heavy article.

Including the images is also in line with our style guides. By convention, character articles contain a character photograph, normally in an infobox (MOS:TV#Images). We do not have character articles for this series, and probably shouldn't for quite some time. That being the case, the "Cast and characters" section is the place where we cover the characters, and their photographs are just as useful (or useless) there as they would be in a full character article.  Sandstein  09:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Unless or until this show (and/or the novel series) gains in popularity such that separate character articles are warranted, a gallery of images in this article is completely appropriate. siafu (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've re-added the gallery and expect that whoever disagrees with its inclusion will seek further discussion and consensus for its removal here.  Sandstein  10:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is not a consensus, nowhere near it. It is one editor arguing their point, and another editor contributing nothing further to the discussion in manner of support with guidelines, policies, solid reasoning, etc. Cast images in episode articles are not solidly supported by any guidelines, and as the example provided with Game of Thrones, technically they shouldn't be included there either but the usage there is to display the changes in cast between the multiple seasons. Nor are images included for every cast member; rather, only a few. This particular example does not fit into this series, and cast images are available in the articles for the actors. Furthermore, Wikipedia is about content and information about a topic - we do not exist to make the internet look "pretty", with what you assume and claim that "people want" with no evidence or support to back this up. If I wanted to know the age of the actors, I would click the relevant article. Why should that not be included, but the photos are? Regarding MOS:TV#Images, it states "When looking for images for the character infobox ..." - we do not have character infoboxes here, so that part does not apply to this page. Continuing on: "Images in the body of the article could consist of concept designs for the character, behind-the-scenes images, and any other image that has critical commentary adjacent to the image, which requires an image to better understand what is being said" - the image being included do not contribute to any area stated in this, so the guideline you have provided does not, as you initially believed, support this inclusion. If the basis for moving them here is due to non-existent character articles, then the images of the characters should be of the characters themselves, as (somewhat) stated above wit "concept designs for the character", not of the actors, as they only play the characters and hence this does not provide further information for the series. The section may be entitled "Cast and characters", but WP:TVCAST does not support the inclusion of images here either, where it is here that titling the section as "Cast and characters" is mentioned. Alex|The|Whovian 11:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we are interested in our articles looking "pretty", if we can do so with pertinent images. As per the relevant MOS guideline, WP:PERTINENCE: "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals." In this case, I'm of the view that showing the faces of the main cast is useful and pertinent, because it allows the reader to visually associate characters and actors at a glance.  Sandstein  13:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, see The Legend of Korra#Cast and characters for another example with which I happen to be familiar where a cast gallery has long been part of the article, which is classified as a good article.  Sandstein  13:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So the issue is that the photos are of the cast members outside of character? Please feel free to find some acceptable replacement images, then. siafu (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think agree mostly with Sandstein.

In addition I don't think an all to formal reading of those guidelines without having the big picture in mind is helpful here. Looking at it from the reader's perspective providing the pictures (no matter in which section, template or format) is quite useful, as many people identify the characters visually. That is they recognize/recall the face rather than the name in such cases the pictures are extremely helpful.

Another thing is that in "grey areas", that is cases that are open to editorial discretion, slightly different readings of policy or simply a matter of taste/personal preference, it is usually a good idea to let the main contributors decide in doubt. Potentially agonizing them over minor or marginal issues can often lead to their frustration and drive them away. Even if from one's own perspective the article might look slightly "better" or adhere slightly better to policy, the quality of its content won't be better in the long run if the main contributors fade away in frustration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make a slightly different point: that the last picture, of Florence Faivre, makes no sense. Both Wes Chatham as Amos Burton, and Frankie Adams as Roberta "Bobbie" W. Draper are much more important characters, ones that we follow, and have immensely more screen time. I propose both of those, or at least one of them, as a replacement for a picture of Florence Faivre, whose character is more McGuffin than anything else Richardhod (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception for The Expanse

It's strange that you would consider the opinion of two minor writers Lauren Davis and Max Nicholson, who have only seen the pilot of a TV show at Comic-Con as a worthwhile reception and reject the opinion of two TV critics, Maureen Ryan, television critic for Variety, a juror for the Peabody Awards and a board member of the Television Critics Association, and Ryan McGee, who has written among others for The A.V. Club and HitFix, and who have actually seen screeners (2-4 episodes) of the show. What's the problem with referencing podcasts, especially long running ones by industry professionals? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_%28TV_series%29#Reception The smoking gnu (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm copying this from my talk page to Talk:The Expanse (TV series), and will reply there.  Sandstein  08:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, per WP:SPS we don't generally accept self-published sources such as blogs or podcasts. There are exceptions though, and maybe others could comment about how reputed these critics are? As concerns style, I think that the additions I removed were poorly edited: they're just a overly lengthy accumulation of quotes, and very superficial ones at that ("just stuff happening to types"). If included, this material should be presented more concisely, and preferably summarized rather than quoted.  Sandstein  08:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

But NO media source is “reliable”! It’s always just some source that you have never met, stating something that you have never checked, let alone statistically trustworthy double-blind observations that you yourself peer-reviewed. The only difference is, that it has a design and ID that the very personal-biased you has deemed “reliable” and “an authority” because it fits your world view and generally a positive gut feel. (Like pretty much everyone else does too, by the way.) Not one bit else. But hey, we all know about Wikipedia’s extremist-politician-level cognitive dissonance regarding argument from authority… Which is exactly why Wikipedia isn’t an allowed source itself.
Why am I not surprised you’re a German Wikipedia user…
— 78.35.94.128 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   Wow: an ip-editor with a contribution history 20 minutes and 6 edits long, dissing a sysop and 12-year-veteran on en:WP for also editing in German. (And i thot it was big news when i saw a horse fly!) Consult WP:CIV, and WP:RS.
--Jerzy•t 05:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto for the second season

It seems the marketing drones of “Syfy” [sic] have been hard at work, making it look like the reviews are for the entire season, when they actually came out right after, or even before the release of the first two-episode double-feature.
I edited it to give at least a little bit of a hint. (So in case the edit goes away, you know somebody’s actively censoring this.)
— 78.35.94.128 (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Second season release has been botched entirely

The article should mention the fact that Expanse season 2.0 has only been released on SyFy which means the show has oin fact not aired at all for most viewers. There has been no news or explanations why this has happened or what is the release schedule of the show. It should be available on Netflix but it is not.

Currently the show has become a legitimate torrent download object due to failed release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.159.222 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It aired on Space in Canada. –xeno^talk 13:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:9E4:2000:D05F:E685:743B:4EC7 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Don Quixote and Andromeda References

The first series includes references to the novel Don Quixote: Miller and Havelock seem similar to the characters of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza, while Julie Mao is clearly Dulcinea; Holden also exhibits traits similar to Don Quixote; other references include Don Quixote's horse Rocinante. Also the myth of Andromeda is referenced (In the last two episodes of the first season, Julie Andromeda Mao appears naked and bound to the wall, just as Andromeda was chained naked to a rock in Greek mythology). Reference is also made to the classic book The Canterbury Tales (Holden is originally a crewmember of the Canterbury). I think it would be good if these references could somehow be mentioned in the article. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The Canterbury Tales is a stretch, Canterbury is also a city in England and one in New Zealand as well. It does have a pod called the Knight though, but calling it a direct link to The Canterbury Tales is pure speculation.

The Don Quixote one however is much more interesting. In the novels Don Quixote is a huge inspiration on Holden and it's mentioned multiple times. You've also missed a reference in the series to it, the windmills by the family farm which aren't mentioned in the books but is a nice touch in the show. Having said that though I think it would be difficult to write it into the article unless we have good references backing them up. While it's mentioned in the books the show isn't the books so it would be out of place to directly compare them in that manner. However the show does make a lot of reference to it, we just need reliable sources. Canterbury Tail talk 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Dont put the same genre repeatedly

Either leave the genre there or put the subgenre there. Don't repeat things over. It's preferable if you put subgenre per WP:SPECIFICLINK. But alas if there's too many subgenre to cover then leave it as primary genre to avoid overlisting.--Taeyebar 18:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done: Science fiction and space opera are not the same genre. LoMStalk 22:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Genre

Judging by the review aggregator Metacritic, most critics are referring to this series as science fiction and drama, not space opera or mystery. - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, multiple sources, as well as the producers, are calling it a Space Opera. relevant links: THR, Deadline, IndiWire, Variety, New York Times, Forbes. LoMStalk 22:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The majority of sources call it science fiction, not space opera. - Gothicfilm (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again. Sources are also calling it a Space Opera. I've provided links to reputable outlets to confirm this. (I'm not denying that they're calling it science fiction either.) LoMStalk 23:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@LordofMoonSpawn: So I'm not sure I agree that The Expanse actually is space opera, but if we accept that it is and you look at the definition of space opera, the very first line is that it's a subgenre of science fiction (which definitely fits with my overall understanding of it). So all space opera is science fiction (but not all science fiction is space opera). So listing both, as you seem to want to do, seems pretty clearly redundant... if The Expanse is space opera, then we don't need to also say it's science fiction. Am I missing something? (personally I'd prefer to list it as simply science fiction but if that's not sufficient, then we shouldn't be listing both) —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick:
FACT
1) Sources are calling it both science fiction and space opera. 2) There isn't any definitive guideline regarding genres, but what we know is that they must be sourced.

OPINION
While it's true that the show's space opera, it also covers stuff that you will only come across the parent genre. But since this falls under original research (on my part), let's just go with what the sources are saying.

LoMStalk 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Uhm... here's a pretty reputable source saying space opera is science fiction. If some sources are calling it science fiction, and some others are calling it space opera, then some of the sources are just not being as specific and that doesn't mean the article should include both terms. If some sources referred to person X as a "human" and some referred to them as a "woman", you wouldn't require every listing of person X to include "person X is a human woman" because "woman" implies the term "human" and to constantly say "human woman" would be extremely redundant. Just like "woman" implies "human" (all women are human), so too does "space opera" imply "science fiction" (all space operas are science fiction). This is WP:COMMON —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Putting "science fiction space opera television series" in the lead looks absurd. What Joeyconnick says above is entirely correct. I also agree with him that this series should be listed as science fiction. The majority of sources call it science fiction, leaving out space opera. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not common practice to put the main genre in the lead, while a sub genre is listed in the infobox. The main genre belongs first in the infobox, possibly followed by others if warranted. Check other articles. I'm not aware of any that leave the main genre out of the infobox. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Cast photographs

There's been disagreement about whether to include photographs of the principal cast, as seen in this revision.

I'm of the view that the images should be included, as a service to readers: People will want to know what the cast look like, - e.g, in order to be able to put a name to the characters seen on screen. To do so, clicking on each character article would be much less convenient. Also, the photographs give an immediate impression of the diversity of the cast. Finally, they do visually enliven the otherwise text-heavy article.

Including the images is also in line with our style guides. By convention, character articles contain a character photograph, normally in an infobox (MOS:TV#Images). We do not have character articles for this series, and probably shouldn't for quite some time. That being the case, the "Cast and characters" section is the place where we cover the characters, and their photographs are just as useful (or useless) there as they would be in a full character article.  Sandstein  09:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Unless or until this show (and/or the novel series) gains in popularity such that separate character articles are warranted, a gallery of images in this article is completely appropriate. siafu (talk) 07:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've re-added the gallery and expect that whoever disagrees with its inclusion will seek further discussion and consensus for its removal here.  Sandstein  10:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is not a consensus, nowhere near it. It is one editor arguing their point, and another editor contributing nothing further to the discussion in manner of support with guidelines, policies, solid reasoning, etc. Cast images in episode articles are not solidly supported by any guidelines, and as the example provided with Game of Thrones, technically they shouldn't be included there either but the usage there is to display the changes in cast between the multiple seasons. Nor are images included for every cast member; rather, only a few. This particular example does not fit into this series, and cast images are available in the articles for the actors. Furthermore, Wikipedia is about content and information about a topic - we do not exist to make the internet look "pretty", with what you assume and claim that "people want" with no evidence or support to back this up. If I wanted to know the age of the actors, I would click the relevant article. Why should that not be included, but the photos are? Regarding MOS:TV#Images, it states "When looking for images for the character infobox ..." - we do not have character infoboxes here, so that part does not apply to this page. Continuing on: "Images in the body of the article could consist of concept designs for the character, behind-the-scenes images, and any other image that has critical commentary adjacent to the image, which requires an image to better understand what is being said" - the image being included do not contribute to any area stated in this, so the guideline you have provided does not, as you initially believed, support this inclusion. If the basis for moving them here is due to non-existent character articles, then the images of the characters should be of the characters themselves, as (somewhat) stated above wit "concept designs for the character", not of the actors, as they only play the characters and hence this does not provide further information for the series. The section may be entitled "Cast and characters", but WP:TVCAST does not support the inclusion of images here either, where it is here that titling the section as "Cast and characters" is mentioned. Alex|The|Whovian 11:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we are interested in our articles looking "pretty", if we can do so with pertinent images. As per the relevant MOS guideline, WP:PERTINENCE: "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals." In this case, I'm of the view that showing the faces of the main cast is useful and pertinent, because it allows the reader to visually associate characters and actors at a glance.  Sandstein  13:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, see The Legend of Korra#Cast and characters for another example with which I happen to be familiar where a cast gallery has long been part of the article, which is classified as a good article.  Sandstein  13:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So the issue is that the photos are of the cast members outside of character? Please feel free to find some acceptable replacement images, then. siafu (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I think agree mostly with Sandstein.

In addition I don't think an all to formal reading of those guidelines without having the big picture in mind is helpful here. Looking at it from the reader's perspective providing the pictures (no matter in which section, template or format) is quite useful, as many people identify the characters visually. That is they recognize/recall the face rather than the name in such cases the pictures are extremely helpful.

Another thing is that in "grey areas", that is cases that are open to editorial discretion, slightly different readings of policy or simply a matter of taste/personal preference, it is usually a good idea to let the main contributors decide in doubt. Potentially agonizing them over minor or marginal issues can often lead to their frustration and drive them away. Even if from one's own perspective the article might look slightly "better" or adhere slightly better to policy, the quality of its content won't be better in the long run if the main contributors fade away in frustration.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to make a slightly different point: that the last picture, of Florence Faivre, makes no sense. Both Wes Chatham as Amos Burton, and Frankie Adams as Roberta "Bobbie" W. Draper are much more important characters, ones that we follow, and have immensely more screen time. I propose both of those, or at least one of them, as a replacement for a picture of Florence Faivre, whose character is more McGuffin than anything else Richardhod (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Reception for The Expanse

It's strange that you would consider the opinion of two minor writers Lauren Davis and Max Nicholson, who have only seen the pilot of a TV show at Comic-Con as a worthwhile reception and reject the opinion of two TV critics, Maureen Ryan, television critic for Variety, a juror for the Peabody Awards and a board member of the Television Critics Association, and Ryan McGee, who has written among others for The A.V. Club and HitFix, and who have actually seen screeners (2-4 episodes) of the show. What's the problem with referencing podcasts, especially long running ones by industry professionals? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_%28TV_series%29#Reception The smoking gnu (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm copying this from my talk page to Talk:The Expanse (TV series), and will reply there.  Sandstein  08:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, per WP:SPS we don't generally accept self-published sources such as blogs or podcasts. There are exceptions though, and maybe others could comment about how reputed these critics are? As concerns style, I think that the additions I removed were poorly edited: they're just a overly lengthy accumulation of quotes, and very superficial ones at that ("just stuff happening to types"). If included, this material should be presented more concisely, and preferably summarized rather than quoted.  Sandstein  08:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

But NO media source is “reliable”! It’s always just some source that you have never met, stating something that you have never checked, let alone statistically trustworthy double-blind observations that you yourself peer-reviewed. The only difference is, that it has a design and ID that the very personal-biased you has deemed “reliable” and “an authority” because it fits your world view and generally a positive gut feel. (Like pretty much everyone else does too, by the way.) Not one bit else. But hey, we all know about Wikipedia’s extremist-politician-level cognitive dissonance regarding argument from authority… Which is exactly why Wikipedia isn’t an allowed source itself.
Why am I not surprised you’re a German Wikipedia user…
— 78.35.94.128 (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

   Wow: an ip-editor with a contribution history 20 minutes and 6 edits long, dissing a sysop and 12-year-veteran on en:WP for also editing in German. (And i thot it was big news when i saw a horse fly!) Consult WP:CIV, and WP:RS.
--Jerzy•t 05:02, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ditto for the second season

It seems the marketing drones of “Syfy” [sic] have been hard at work, making it look like the reviews are for the entire season, when they actually came out right after, or even before the release of the first two-episode double-feature.
I edited it to give at least a little bit of a hint. (So in case the edit goes away, you know somebody’s actively censoring this.)
— 78.35.94.128 (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Second season release has been botched entirely

The article should mention the fact that Expanse season 2.0 has only been released on SyFy which means the show has oin fact not aired at all for most viewers. There has been no news or explanations why this has happened or what is the release schedule of the show. It should be available on Netflix but it is not.

Currently the show has become a legitimate torrent download object due to failed release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.159.222 (talk) 11:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

It aired on Space in Canada. –xeno^talk 13:23, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Good for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:9E4:2000:D05F:E685:743B:4EC7 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Number of signatures

@Sandstein: Hi, I see that you've undone my edit changing it to over 120000. I'm not sure which source you are referring to, but if you check the petition itself (the change.org one) you can clearly see it has more than 125000 signatures now. --DeeM28 (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, but your edit kept the reference to media report, which said 100,000. You'd need to have referenced the petition itself to make your edit verifiable. In any case, more than 100,00 is still true, and based on a secondary rather than a primary source. Sandstein 10:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Season 4 completed

The article had some (admittedly bad) wording about speculation that S4 was completed. This was correctly removed here. I believe I can provide some sources for that, though not sure if they are considered WP:RS.

With The Expanse season 4 production having wrapped

That’s a wrap on season four of The Expanse!

That’s a Season 4 wrap on Naomi Nagata. Galestar (talk) 04:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Just be aware that production having "wrapped" isn't the same as season 4 is complete. It just means that the actual physical filming is completed. There's still the editing, post production, effects, scoring, sound design etc to go. So it's not complete, just filming has wrapped. Canterbury Tail talk 11:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Perhaps a sentence about S4 "production" or "filming" being complete is warranted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 14:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Filming sounds better to me. They'll have many months of VFX work to do after the show wraps filming. Because there's a huge difference between the actors being done filming a series and the behind the scenes people finishing work on said series. I remember reading that they said it would be tight to get the VFX stuff done before season 3 aired on Syfy for example. Esuka (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Paulo Costanzo (Shed) as main cast

@Drovethrughosts: can you please explain your revert here[1] and provide an RS for this? The current inline source [2] lists him as a guest star Paulo Costanzo ... will appear as guest stars in the thriller’s first season Galestar (talk) 15:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

They explained in their edit summary. When an actor is credited in the opening credits of any TV show among other main cast they are main cast members unless stated otherwise(Such as "special guest star & actor name"). Esuka (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm new to editing TV shows/movies. Since the source contradicts the rule you've described, is there a WP guideline document that includes these kinds of rules? Galestar (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The TV show credits automatically overrule the source. The show wouldn't list someone among other main cast members if they weren't main cast, it's common sense really, no show does that. Though if you want further clarification you could always start a topic on the Wikipedia TV Project page if need be. See here [3]. Esuka (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I understand your rule, not really looking for clarification. I'm looking for a more canonical source to that rule - such as being in the guideline doc (not the talk page) that you linked. I don't see it there but perhaps I'm missing it. Galestar (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Acronyms Used Repeatedly in the Article but Not Defined

OPA: Outer Planets Alliance UNN: United Nations Navy Arcanicus (talk) 11:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Genre notes

I recently reinstated the genres 'space opera' and 'space western' in the article. The editor removing them correctly observed that the terms had not been substantiated by article content. I've gone ahead and added at least one reference to both genres as well as that of 'film noir', a genre considered by at least one reviewer to be the show's essential fit as a detective story.
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The genres in the infobox should be the most key ones, genres that encompass the entire series. More specific, subgenres that don't relate to the entire series can be discussed (and sourced in the body text). "Noir" only describes Miller's story in the first season, while "space western" appears to be a "vibe" (wording from the source) for the upcoming fourth season. "Space opera" is a subgenre of sci-fi, so it's redundant. It's easy to go overkill and list every possible genre that you can find a source for and put it in the infobox, but I believe it should just be the main genres; with subgenres, which are seen more as "themes", can be discussed in the body text. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that reference doesn't describe it as Space Western, just that it engenders that vibe. And remember, for the categories it must be commonly referenced as such, not just finding a single reference for it. Also it has to be defining, and they don't seem to be. Space opera seems to be an easier fit than space western in my view. Canterbury Tail talk 19:10, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's unpack those comments. Drovethrughosts and Canterbury Tail, we have sources that note that specifically name the series as part of the 'space opera' genre - not only in season 1, but the other seasons as well.

It was accurately pointed out that neither 'space western' nor 'noir' was a descriptor used by reviewers after the first season, and that is supported by a cursory Google. Towards that end, I have edited the article to reflect that the first season fits not only space opera, but 'space western' and 'noir' as we well.

That 'sci-fi' and 'space opera' are related is immaterial; Spaceballs, Futurama and others fit within the larger scifi genre; but but programs like Babylon 5, Andromeda, Battlestar Galactica and this series are more precisely described as space opera - and being more clear instead of the general description of science fiction. This is precisely our mandate as editors; to concisely describe the article subject matter. This is supported by multiple sources; space opera keeps coming up as the appropriate genre. I am absolutely prepared to provide gobs of resources in support of that statement, if asked.

Therefore, I am inclined to argue that 'space opera' as a specific genre should not only remain, but also that it be included in the infobox as well. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly apologies I should have come here first...Contributing to Wikipedia is never a good idea in a rush ;). As a fan of the show I did not think the categories as described by Wikipedia matched the series as a whole or at best only possibly might apply to one part only of the first season. Vox is a reliable source, but I am unable to see in the sources you have provided where you get Space Western from (sorry looked at wrong article). In view of the fact that these are just a couple reviews among many, one only relevant possibly to a future season, i would not include these less than partially applicable descriptions in the infobox. (With a new 'western ref' about the whole series, i think i better humbly get off my horse (I think my failing was not having a US viewpoint). ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 11:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

And indeed I think there is agreement that the lesser sub genres can remain in the body but not the info box. Can we find a source for the horror elements of the show? Certainly they were played up more in the books (Eros incident, etc.) but do still remain in the show. –xeno^talk 12:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Iwondered about that as well, but reviews that noted it (classic horror, xenophobia and body horror) tended to be anecdotal or unreliably sourced (ie. viewer as opposed to reviewer sources). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this passage could be placed elsewhere in the article, as the bit about season 4 having "space western vibes" has nothing to do with critical reception because it's referring to what the writers from the series said, not from reviewers. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I am firmly of the opinion that 'space opera' dies in fact belong in the infobox, as it more succinctly defines the genre of the series than the umbrella of simply 'science fiction.' I do agree with you, however, that using 'space western' or 'detective noir' belong in the infobox; those aspects have certainly appeared within the series, but they do not define it as an overriding definition the way that 'space opera' does. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with space opera replacing science fiction in the infobox. My main concern, as stated just above, is that maybe it should be moved out of the reception section and into a separate section. Maybe it could be expanded a bit more, and go in a "themes" section? Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I could see that; a themes section seems a bit necessary to observe, as critical reception mixes discussion about the genre/these with commentary about sfx and characterization by the many fine actors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we denominate this series as "American"?

The article begins, "The Expanse is an American science fiction television series ...." Do we need to call it "American"? Why not "American-Canadian"? Or—my preference—not assign a nation-based adjective at all. (There might be an established tradition or style about which I am ignorant. If so, I am open to learning about it.) Thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

This is standard practice per MOS:TV. The Expanse is an American production, produced by Alcon Entertainment originally for the American cable network Syfy. Filming location (Canada, in this instance) doesn't have to do with it determining a series' origin. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you Drovethrughosts! :^)   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I am a man. The traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Teaser

The Plot reads like a teaser, instead of a summary of all four seasons. Right now, this section ends with that various plot elements "are part of a conspiracy that threatens humanity". No doubt that's a good thing for encouraging people that have never watched The Expanse to tune in. But that's not part of Wikipedia's mission. As an encyclopedia, we have the duty to provide a complete summary the plot, regardless of spoilers. Without this, readers of Wikipedia still wouldn't know Who shot J.R.?.

I plan to write a full summary of all four seasons of the plot, taking it, for the most part, from the List of The Expanse episodes. I just wanted to be sure that there were no objections before I started. Anybody who wants to contribute is welcome. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Before you get ahead of yourself, per MOS:TVPLOT, season summaries in the main articles should only be around 100 words. They should be concise, because List of The Expanse episodes has summaries for every episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, I would also add that you might want to consider writing episode articles instead of summaries. That way, you can use episode reviews as well as production information and how creative cgi decisions were made. There's a wealth of information out there; go forth an gather it. I am excited to see the episode articles you put together. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Drovethrughosts, Jack Sebastian and everyone else: I had not seen MOS:TVPLOT and was unaware of the restriction to 100 words per season. (My work on plots so far has been limited to movies and novels.) My intent was to provide an outline of the first four seasons, longer than the one paragraph we had originally (see History - 21 December) but shorter than all of the 46 episode summaries. In reading the main article and the list of episodes (but not reading The Expanse (novel series)), there was a gap in my understanding. The original plot summary was too short but the episode listing was too long and filled with too much detail to really appreciate the concept of the whole series.

Maybe it would be better to change the main plot section to a couple of paragraphs on the series as a whole and then a single paragraph on each season. For example (and this is my first try): "In the first season, the space-freighter Canterbury and the Martian Navy flagship Donnager are destroyed by stealth ships. The crew of the gunship Rocinante investigates and eventually discovers a virus that kills off most of the humans on the asteroid Eros. The virus originally came from an alien civilization outside of the Solar System.

"In the second season..." --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 17:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

The hardest thing about working in Wikipedia is that there will be people who disagree mightily with how you see a given thing. Wackiness will ensue, some of it fun, some of it not so fun. WP:IAR is a really good guideline to follow if you want to try something new, but be prepared to politely defend any new ways of doing things against people who depend on protocol as a guiding light.

I urge you to try your hand at article writing. A key aspect to writing in Wikipedia which is different than most other types of writing is that every single viewpoint or opinion you have must take a backseat to sources. That can be hard sometimes.

That said, go forth and follow your bliss. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian: I never intended to go past the MOS guidelines. As I said, I had not seen MOS:TVPLOT.

As near as I can figure (and it is somewhat confusing), I'm allowed 200 words (about two paragraphs) for the introduction and 100 words (one 'graph) for each season. This is because we have moved the list of episodes to another article.

(PAUSE)

I've completed the series overview and the 'graph for Season 1. I'll complete the other three seasons in the following weeks. I also deleted actors' names in this section, per WP:TVPLOT. If anyone else wants to change what I have edited and/or add stuff about the remaining seasons, all are welcome. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Another editor for the Plot or Series Overview section

@Markworthen: We are only allowed 200 words (about two paragraphs) for the introduction and 100 words (one 'graph) for each season in the main article. Please look at MOS:TVPLOT. It says "the plot summary at the series article should allocate around 100 words per season". And we are not allowed sub-sections names like "Setting" or "Season 1". By the way, the fourth paragraph starting with "An untested starship" IS the second season. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New logo

Should the logo for The Expanse be updated? In Season 4 it looks like the logo has changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by In vivo veritas (talk • contribs) 10:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Clarify season 6 renewal

The introduction's mention of renewal for season 6 made it sound like the release was expected to be November 2020, but that was just when they announced that they would renew. I'll see if I can make the wording clearer. Showeropera (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The podcast section

Do any of you think we should include information about The Churn podcast in the Aftershow and podcast section (right before the paragraph where we talk about Ty and That Guy)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreskX (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no direct answer to this. There are about a dozen dedicated to the show podcasts in total. I added TATG/TEAS to the article because it's made by people from the show. --Flipping Switches (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

But The Churn podcast also heavily features people who made the show as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndreskX (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)