Talk:Voltron: Legendary Defender/Archive 1

Archive 1

Names

Do we have a source for the human characters' full names, aside from Pidge's? They match up with the characters' names in the original continuity, but given the precedent of Pidge, I wouldn't count on LD's creators sticking with it for other characters, either. KaminoNeko (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Change or remove Directors and Writers credits in the Season 2 list

The director and writer credits for Season 2 list are completely inaccurate, someone copy and pasted the credits of the Season 1 list into the Season 2 list. 109.255.135.86 (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Refuteku (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017

Please remove "McClain" from Lance's profile and "Garret" from Hunk's profile. Neither of these names are confirmed for these characters. 198.206.255.2 (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2017 (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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 16:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voltron: Legendary Defender. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160730211918/http://comicsalliance.com/lion-forge-voltron-legendary-defender-sdcc-variant-cover/ to http://comicsalliance.com/lion-forge-voltron-legendary-defender-sdcc-variant-cover/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Episode count

Netflix lists it as 11 episodes. Wikipedia currently has it listed as 13. Yes I know the first one is 68 minutes long and the rest are only 23, but it's still ONE episode. Having an extra long episode doesn't make it three episodes. Maybe it should be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.33.129.74 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it.--2601:446:4300:A467:A1E7:A615:327F:2C8 (talk) 09:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

All other streaming services (iTunes, Amazon Video, VUDU, etc.) beside Netflix has three separated episodes instead of a single one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.4.88.13 (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the proper way to render the episodes: 1 13 June 10, 2016 2 13 January 20, 2017 3 7 August 4, 2017 4 6 October 13, 2017 5 6 March 2, 2018 6 7 June 15, 2018 7 13 August 10, 2018 8 13 ?

Whomever made it into split seasons did it wrong. Season SEVEN was released today... 13 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.97.24 (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The Reception section has multiple issues!

The reception section needs some serious rework! It need to be made clear that much of the controversy and critiques surrounds "shipping" and representation, not necessarily other parts of the show. The sources for some of the critiques are dubious (a Twitter site of "an influential animator"?!?) and some critiques are not even sourced, particularly the "cut-and-paste" theory. Oddly enough, little mention is made of the behavior of people in the fandom towards the show's creators, which can be readily sourced. G. Capo (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Your biased removal of certain sourced comments has been fixed. It is clear that you are attempting to paint an entire fandom with the same brush, rather than note that the klanti faction of the fandom was responsible for most of the negativity. You do not get to do that when the critics and fans who are giving criticism have nothing to do with that faction.Liqunaei (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Y'all need to calm down. Liqunaei, I sourced some of your stuff. G. Capo, let's make sure to be careful to state that it was the Klance fandom that was responsible for a lot of the drama. I added the expose information from Sean Z. to the fan behavior section, as I do agree that we need to be careful on who we put blame on. putting it on the entire fandom isn't fair. Jesip lunati (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've addressed, in the thread below, a 16-point analysis of what's wrong with one block of that material. The same kind of analysis can be applied to the entire "Reception" section, especially "LGBT-Related Controversy & Criticism" (which needs to be renamed "LGBT-related controversy and criticism" per MOS:HEADINGS, MOS:&, if kept at all). Just the fact that this sub-section has sub-sub-headings is a serious indicator of WP:COATRACK and WP:NOT#INDISCRIINATE and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY issues. The awards section is probably fine, but should be checked for entries from non-notable entities.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Season 8

I am reaching out in good faith. Quotes from critics continues to be changed, altered or deleted, while positive comments have been left alone. Every quote has been taken directly from official and seasoned critics.

While I am aware tensions are being raised, rather than continue to edit the content I will be opening a specific LGBT Controversy section that covers the legitimate criticism from multiple sources.

Max1057, I kindly request your response to this. I am contacting you before I go though further channels in good faith that we can come to a reasonable conclusion. Jesip lunati (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. I’m not against their being negative reviews, my problem was the balance made it look like there were more negative than positive reviews, when in actuality there were far more positive ones then negative ones. Max1057 (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think the Geekiary review should be on here. As it make of lot of unproven assumptions about the production process. And it also includes a lot of conspiracy theories. I wouldn’t even call it a reputable site, it’s just a blog site supported by two people on Patreon. Max1057 (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The Geekiary is considered reputable enough to be interviewing Voltron staff, including JDS and LM, as members of the media, so you may want to be aware of that before you continue to state that they aren't. I'll link their interview right here: http://thegeekiary.com/shiro-is-gay-voltron-sdcc-2018/54296

Just because you don't like them doesn't remove their credentials. If the shows and dozens of conventions have given them press passes to do media interviews on them, it really doesn't matter what your opinion of them is. The show considered them the media, and thus Wikipedia really should as well.

And there have been well over a dozen negative reviews written about the final season, all done by legitimate and reputable news sources. I understand that there is a lot of contention about what this season was, but there wasn't just fans reacting. If you'd like me to source every negative review, including the official podcast and the same people who also run the other Voltron podcast for The Nerdist who also loathed the final season and spoke at length about how much they disliked it, that is also an option. Even the voice actor for Hunk said that he hated parts of the final season and that it was gate-keepered by someone with control of the lore. The voice actors for Allura and Lotor are on the record about how much they disliked the season, as well. These are all sited and verifiable things. Jesip lunati (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Where on earth has the voice actors ever said that. And if you talking about the Tee Vee podcast when referring to the guy from the Nerdest, he wasn't on the season eight episode. Max1057 (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

They said it in front of hundreds of people at the panels at SacAnime. There were dozens of people who posted quotes from there, from every part of the fandom. You can also find the stuff from Tyler Labine directly on his instagram, on the last picture of Hunk where he responded directly to fans who were disappointed with the season. You also have people like Kihyun Ryu, the supervising producer, episode director, storyboard artist, and animator, liking tweets about how people hate the epilogue and how they feel bad that Kihyun had to even draw the scene. It's on his twitter.

You might be correct about Kyle Anderson. I thought he was there, but you may be right. However I do know Moises was on there, and Moises has been interviewing and running Voltron panels for a long while. Also be aware that when you talk negatively about people on social media that it's pretty easy to see it. It seems that you are not acting in good faith. Jesip lunati (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I know about the panels and they did not say that. Fans are always misquoting those panels and taking them out of context. It's been happening since the start of the show. I did find the stuff you were talking about on Tyler Labine's instagram. Even though he said there was somethings he didn't like, he still said that overall he did like season eight. As for Kihyun you may or may not be right. Sometimes people like things on Twitter to acknowledge the tweets, not necessarily agree with them. Or or maybe he did agree, we have no way of knowing. I suppose none of that really matters. It's not like we're putting the cast and crew on the page. Anyway thanks for replying to me all these times. Sorry for being annoying as well as everything else. Max1057 (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess I may see it different because I was there along with a few of my friends and most of those quotes were right. If you were there, I was one of the cosplayers sitting in the front area in either the fifth or sixth row. As for Kihyun, he was untagged and has been mentioned by name but not twitter handle in dozens of tweets since S8 was released, but that was the only one he found? That's... questionable. It isn't proof, but it's definitely a red flag, kind of like how Neil Kaplan said he wasn't happy with the wedding scene and how Kimberly Brooks said she hated dying. AJ also keeps saying Lotor was robbed, which is really bitter. I've never seen cast and staff so unpleasant about the ending of a show they should have been so proud of. And sorry for being annoying as well. I believe we both let our emotions get the best of us. Jesip lunati (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

As agreed, I created the LGBT Controversy section at the end. Jesip lunati (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I believe that Aj being confused about Curtis should not be under the editing section. He may have been confused or he could've simply just forgotten from being tired, we have no way of knowing which it is. Max1057 (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

As well as the AJ part, i’ve noticed that Joaquim Dos Santos’s open later apology is not mentioned in the LGBT section, when it probably should be. Max1057 (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Resolution on the Reception Section

Fradio71 has been repeatedly editing out things he doesn’t like from the Wikipedia. I have reported him for disruptive editing and he immediately reverted the edit after I reported him. Liqunaei (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not disruptive to remove unencyclopedic content. It's not disruptive to moderate one's own talk page. Nothing I've ever done was explicitly bad. Ignorant? Sure, but at this point you're just trying to libel me--Fradio71 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This is the first time I've noticed changes to this talk page. I did not receive a “ping” regarding this page. Apologies for any chaos I may have caused. I'm open to working together on this but let me be clear…I believe the extraordinarily poor behavior of segments of the “fandom” needs to be mentioned in this article. It’s part of the controversy surrounding the series. I believe most of us can agree with this sentiment. I appreciate the sourcing for the deleted paragraph (as it appears below). I was in the process of finding the sources for the statements when someone beat me to it. The way that the new subsection was written before it was deleted generally worked. It was sourced and rooted in fact and while it doesn’t directly place blame on one specific subsection of the “fandom”, hinted that at least one section of the “fandom” had a role in the threats…

Fan Behavior

The series was marred by the extraordinarily poor behavior on the part of a number of its fans. Death threats were issued to many within the Voltron cast and crew, particularly to the showrunners Dos Santos and Montgomery and voice actors Keaton and Taylor-Klaus. Almost all of the negative behavior centered on either LGBT representation or “shipping." The negative behavior has been well-documented over the years by fans and journalists alike.

On October 2, 2018, Sean Z. of GeekDad wrote an expose on the fandom culture of Voltron, in particular in regards to the "Anti" section of the Klance fandom, stating, "Though the majority of Voltron fans who ship Klance aren't antis, the majority of antis gravitate to Klance. Antis in the Voltron fandom began adopting the language of the social justice movement on Tumblr to justify their dislike for Sheith and other 'shaladin' ships (Shiro/Paladin), and vehemently argue creators shouldn’t write or draw it."

Death threats were made to Josh Keaton, Shiro's voice actor, and his family for voicing support of a specific same-sex "ship" on social media.

A fan demanded that Keith and Lance be written to be romantically involved with one another and threatened to publicly post private internal documents related to the show until the two male characters become a couple.

Both the showrunners and voice actors and actresses received a number of death threats at the conclusion of Season 7 primarily for both the characterization and the death of Adam, an LGBT character. Bex Taylor-Klaus, the Pidge’s voice actress, received death threats for defending the show’s depiction of its LGBT characters.it." Taylor-Klaus identifies as being part of the LGBT community.

In defense of the Executive Producers, Tyler Labine, voice actor for Hunk, stated on his personal instagram account after Season 8's release in regards to Shiro's epilogue, "Powers that be and people in control aren’t always free to do things the way they want. There is always someone more powerful with lore control keep the gates shut. Just remember that next time you decide that the creators of this show didn’t care about the fandom. I assure they cared more than anybody. Fact."

Thoughts?
G. Capo (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In direct response to G. Gapo and the proposed subsection: I'm afraid I have to poke a lot of holes in this (and please don't take it personally; this is about policy, sourcing, etc., not you or your intent – I don't read minds – and I'm not sure how much of this was your material to begin with). I understand the impulse to include something like that above draft, but this is the wrong kind of site for it. I'm skeptical even the Voltron wiki would accept it in anything like this form.

To go over some of the issues with it:

• None of this is sourced (WP:V, WP:NOR), unless some version of it had many citations and someone removed them. Much of it would have to have unusually good sourcing (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), both for WP:BLP policy reasons and to establish why any of it is of clear encyclopedia-level relevance. [Update: Some sourcing is provided below, but it only partially addresses this one item of critque.]
• 'I believe the extraordinarily poor behavior of segments of the “fandom” needs to be mentioned in this article' isn't a reason to include it (see WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE). This is a theme invented out of thin air via what we call "original research" (WP:NOR), in particular a novel synthesis (WP:SYNTH) of disparate bits of unconnected, unproven trivia and allegations (most of it unidentifiable), woven together in a unique way (by one or more WP editors, not a reliable source) to paint a made-up picture of the "series [being] marred" (whatever that's supposed to mean) by "extraordinarily poor behavior on the part of a number of its fans", which isn't something reliable sources are actually saying.
• If actually reliable sources (WP:RS) that write about the show in depth do not usually mention these things, covering them here is undue weight (WP:UNDUE) – even as just bare facts, without trying to weave them into a narrative of fandom gone amok. It also borders on off-topic (by making the article on the show be about some random people and their alleged drama; see WP:COATRACK).
• GeekDad (the only publisher mentioned) does not appear to be a reliable source; it's a clickbait "content farm" which doesn't even have a search feature, and just consists of advertising and (when you can even tell the difference) ephemeral pop-culture posts by random-nobody users of the site (WP:UGC). It's fans writing for other fans about fancruft.
• "has been well-documented over the years by fans and journalists alike" is a nonsense statement from WP's perspective. Fan blogging (WP:SPS) and professional journalism (WP:SECONDARY) are not "alike" in any sense WP cares about. "Has been well-documented" is meaningless hand-waving; asserting a source exists is not citing it. "Well-documented" and "by fans" is an oxymoron; fans writing for other fans is not good documentation in WP terms, it's not valid sourcing of any kind. A basic copywriting matter: "Over the years" and "alike" are useless words in such a construction.
• Inappropriate fan activity is not "part of the controversy" unless/until reliable sources tell us a) there is a controversy and b) that these events in particular are part of it.
• What's drafted above is not encyclopedia material but tabloid-style and belated news coverage (WP:NOT#NEWS), dwelling on "quotoids" and suggestions of scandal.
• Or it would be, except that it's intensely biased (WP:NPOV, MOS:TONE) with language like "The series was marred by the extraordinarily poor behavior on the part of ..."; you can't say anything remotely like that in Wikipedia's own voice (not "marred", not "poor", not "extraordinarily" anything). That's all personal opinion, and WP is not for publishing editorials (WP:NOT#BLOG).
• Blather like "Though the majority of Voltron fans who ship Klance aren't antis, the majority of antis gravitate ..." is fan-wanky, non-encyclopedic twaddle, written in insiders' forum lingo and about trivia that fanboys/girls care about but no one else in the world will ever care about. (See MOS:FICT; though it focuses on in- and out-of-universe phrasing, the general principles apply – writing from within the insular mindset of the fanbase is another form of in-universe writing, just a meta-universe above the one inside the work of fiction.) The entire https://Voltron.Fandom.com wiki exists for this stuff, and WP should not be hosting anything like it (WP:NOT#FORUM).
• "identifies as being part of the LGBT community" is obfuscatory, euphemistic, and politicized buzzwording (WP:NOT#ADVOCACY), and would not be used unless we had no other way to phrase it due to lack of sourced specifics (e.g. "is bisexual" or whatever the case may be, with a very reliable source for it per WP:BLP). See also MOS:IDENTITY.
• The Tyler Labine quote doesn't actually say anything of encyclopedic interest. That productions like this have an organization chart is true of all of them. It also doesn't actually make any sense; "Powers that be and people in control aren’t always free to do things the way they want" is self-contradictory, and Labine is obviously unclear on the concept of "powers that be" and "in control" when using these terms to refer to people in the production who do not actually have the power and are not in control. WP has no rationale for a long quotation that will just confuse readers and make the quoted speaker look like someone who took an interview call while half asleep and not thinking clearly.
• The entire proposed addition is overflowing with passive voice: "was marred by", "were issued to", "has been well-documented", "were made to", etc. While encyclopedia writing requires a bit more passive voice that most other forms (MOS:PASSIVE), it is only used for a few specific purposes (avoiding first- and second-person, and avoiding stating assumed facts as absolutely proven ones), none of which apply here.
• Worse, "the series was marred", "a number of its fans", "Death threats were issued", "Death threats were made", and "A fan demanded" are all weasel-wording (MOS:WEASEL) – claims made without being provably associated with anyone in particular. It also goes to show that this is just not important enough for WP coverage. Public figures receive non-credible threats all the time. A threat is encyclopedically noteworthy when someone is prosecuted for making it and the news covers it in-depth in relation to the target of the threat. Mention of threats with less specifics might also be appropriate given some other kind of non-trivial coverage (e.g. someone notable quitting a show and giving threats they received as the reason, and this being widely reported in reliable sources). Just the fact that someone received threats is not WP-worthy on its own. And "a fan demanded"? Seriously? Fans of shows like this probably send over 1,000 random and heartfelt demands per day. No one cares.
• Expose (verb) and exposé (noun) are different words. And probably not applicable here; an exposé exposes particular parties (individual or organizational) in a publicly and often righteously embarrassing/shaming manner, and none of that appears to apply to any of this – the actors, the crew, the production company ... none of these parties are being whistle-blown.
• "Both the ..." followed by a tripartite list of things (each of which also refers to more than one thing) isn't proper English. Just use "The ...".
• Instragram is a proper name, so capitalize it (MOS:CAPS). But "season 8" is not, so don't (MOS:TV, MOS:TITLES).

Sorry, but pretty much none of this stuff passes Wikipedia muster.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC); updated: 03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In direct response to SMcCandlish comments:

I was unable to initially show the sourced version because the page was locked. Here’s how the additional section would have looked ‘with’ sourcing…

Fan Behavior

The series was marred by the extraordinarily poor behavior on the part of a number of its fans. Death threats were issued to many within the Voltron cast and crew, particularly to the showrunners Dos Santos and Montgomery and voice actors Keaton and Taylor-Klaus. Almost all of the negative behavior centered on either LGBT representation or “shipping." The negative behavior has been well-documented over the years by fans and journalists alike.

On October 2, 2018, Sean Z. of GeekDad wrote an expose on the fandom culture of Voltron, in particular in regards to the "Anti" section of the Klance fandom, stating, "Though the majority of Voltron fans who ship Klance aren’t antis, the majority of antis gravitate to Klance. Antis in the Voltron fandom began adopting the language of the social justice movement on Tumblr to justify their dislike for Sheith and other “shaladin” ships (Shiro/Paladin), and vehemently argue creators shouldn’t write or draw it."

Death threats were made to Josh Keaton, Shiro’s voice actor, and his family for voicing support of a specific same-sex “ship” on social media. "

A fan demanded that Keith and Lance be written to be romantically involved with one another and threatened to publicly post private internal documents related to the show until the two male characters become a couple. "

Both the showrunners and voice actors and actresses received a number of death threats at the conclusion of Season 7 primarily for both the characterization and the death of Adam, an LGBT character. Bex Taylor-Klaus, the Pidge’s voice actress, received death threats for defending the show’s depiction of its LGBT characters.it." Taylor-Klaus identifies as being part of the LGBT community.

In defense of the Executive Producers, Tyler Labine, voice actor for Hunk, stated on his personal instagram account after Season 8's release in regards to Shiro's epilogue, “Powers that be and people in control aren’t always free to do things the way they want. There is always someone more powerful with lore control keep the gates shut. Just remember that next time you decide that the creators of this show didn’t care about the fandom. I assure they cared more than anybody. Fact.”

As you can see, the sources are solid…or at least on par with the rest of the article.

The bulk of the rest of your statements amounts to wiki-lawyering. The passive voice is used because this behavior happened during the show’s run, which has ended. It would be odd to use the active voice here. The GeekDad article itself is backed by sources. I will concede that the part about “Klance” and “Klantis” borders on “fancruft”. However, a substantial number of fans repeatedly sending death threats to Voltron cast and crew because of developments within the show is certainly part of the controversy, borne out of primarily the “shipping” and representation controversy. It also illustrates the poor behavior, which even by “fandom” standards, was exceptionally poor. Let me underscore the fact that we're discussing both a blackmail attempt and more importantly real and numerous death threats, made to the cast and crew of the show and not just "shipping" wars focusing on fictional characters. Let the gravity of that reality sink in for a moment. Finally, Labine’s quote is present to illustrate that the creators, who were repeatedly threatened, do not always have the final say on what makes it to the episode. Labine is a member of the crew and likely knew about the politics behind the series. G. Capo (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You should probably re-read WP:WIKILAWYER since it doesn't mean what you think it means. WP:UGC that has sources is still UGC. None of my relevance arguments have anything to do with grammar and typos; fixing passive voice will not fix the problems of this would-be section. Adding some sources for them doesn't either, because of numerous WP:NOT#Encyclopedic content issues. Something just being true doesn't mean we must include it. The very fact that this is mostly borne out of 'shipping "controversy" is the key to the underlying problem: fans making up slash fiction and getting all ranty-pants at each other about imaginary fantasies that are not actually found in any of the content of the published works that our article is about, well, it's simply off-topic. I already covered the threats stuff. And no one questioned the motivation for including the crappy quote, it's just useful to include it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

In a more general response to Liqunaei and Fradio71 in this and prior threads, and regarding some antics within them and at noticeboards: Even without a "Fan behavior" subsection, the Reception section is still about 3× too long and crufty. These sections need not always be short, in total length, but they are highly compressed when properly written, and focus on awards, and on the reviews of notable reviewers and major review publishers, not on what fans are doing and saying. This is not CosplayAnd'ShippingPedia.

While no one should wander into WP:3RR territory in trying to deal with a crappy "Reception", "Impact", or "In popular culture" section (WP:POPCULT), no one is going to be fooled by a "you were blocked for 3RR = you are wrong in a content dispute" fallacy like the one at the top of this thread. Liqunaei and Fradio71 going around calling each other "vandals" needs to stop, immediately. Neither of you are vandals, you are in a content dispute, which involves other editors, too. If you want to continue with a personality-based chestbeating contest, take it to user talk. More "I just don't like you" posturing in article talk is not appropriate. Who wants to keep or retain or change any of this material is irrelevant, and projecting fantasies about their motivations is uncivil (e.g. insisting that someone is making edits based on nothing but their subjective likes and dislikes, after they've repeatedly explained they're citing WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE and other policies as their rationale). Patterns of incivility will result in much longer blocks than "oops, I wasn't paying attention" 3RR violations (cf. WP:ASPERSIONS).

Please try to be substantive. Give policy- and source-based reasons to keep or retain particular information and claims pertaining to it. As for the cruft-laden existing material, see my analysis above about the proposed addition of more of it, and apply the same razors to what we already have.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You mentioned that GeekDad is probably not a reputable source, if that is the case I will suggest that the Geekiary is not one either. Google news lists it as a blog site and its currently funded by two patrons on Patreon. Max1057 (talk) 13:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Geekiary was reputable enough to interview the producers and cast on multiple occasions, with the official Voltron account retweeting and sharing their reviews and their interviews on multiple occasions. GeekDad was also considered reputable enough to get multiple on the record quotes from Voltron, and one of their articles was co-written by a former employee, Aria, who worked on the final season. Jesip lunati (talk) 13:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

So? They let Podcasts and YouTubers interview them at Con’s, it doesn’t automatically make them reputable. And it doesn’t matter if one of their articles was cowritten by a former employee, the keyword is “former.” I don’t even know who this former employee is. You are constantly using unreliable sources like random Tumblr or Twitter posts. Just because something is sourced doesn’t mean it is reliable. Max1057 (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

If they weren't reputable, Voltron wouldn't have been endorsing their articles and interviews and allowing them press passes and junkets. And discrediting former employees means discrediting anyone who worked on the program. The show is over. They're all former employees. Jesip lunati (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

What exactly was her job? I’ve never heard of her.And no I’m not discrediting anyone that worked on the show. Just cause someone who used to work on the show writes a article on the website does not make the website automatically reputable. Max1057 (talk) 14:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you keep going on about this? It’s been explained above by someone who knows more than both of us about Wikipedia guidelines why GeekDad is not a trusted source. Max1057 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Geekiary has been given direct credentials by Voltron itself. GeekDad is also a trusted enough source as they have been given direct quotes from DreamWorks and LionForge, as well as exclusive interviews on new and upcoming material. So, while you continue to state they aren't credible, the individuals who own the rights to the show say they are. Basically, you're attempting to say a multi-billion dollar corporation has less right to say who they think is credible on their source material than you, a man editing a wikipedia page. Jesip lunati (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

it doesn’t matter what DreamWorks thinks about them. What matters is what the Wikipedia guidelines say. I’m just going off what was said above. If you have a problem take it up with him. And you still haven’t provided any proof about Aira. Max1057 (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a lot of confusion evident in this. "It's a blog" != "unreliable". "Blog" is just a publication format, like "book". Many blogs, with professional editorial staff, are reliable sources, especially for certain kinds of things (proper secondary journalism, and for limited things (WP:PRIMARY, WP:ABOUTSELF) when providing certain kinds of primary material, like interviews. (Like anything else, they're not sources for alleged facts when they just express an opinion.) I'm not going to assert that Geekiary is necessarily a reliable source; it bears further analysis. But it cannot be dismissed simply for being in blog format.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Its not just the blog aspect, none of the writers are journalists or reviewers, it has less followers than GeekDad. And half of the actual review that's sourced is just unsourced conspiracy theories. Max1057 (talk) 05:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Does anyone know what the Wikipedia guidelines say about Rotten Tomatoes audience scores? Should we be referencing it or not? Or should we just use the critics score only? Because the problem is that we can’t verify the accounts that vote on the audience score. Max1057 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In addition, all drafts of the proposed section must be moved to the writer's sandbox. Having them here makes the discussion incredibly hard to follow. The section is still not written in an encyclopedic manner, not suitable for the page--Fradio71 (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

We usually include them, but we cannot do any WP:AEIS based on them, because they are tertiary and non-substantive. That is, the RT score is a fact to report, as part of an overall section on public and critical reception, but is not an analysis to cite for claims of fact, especially non-neutral ones. E.g., WP cannot say in its own voice that X film was mediocre, whether on the basis of a review aggregator or not.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

References

AJ LoCascio should be removed from the editing section

The fact that AJ didn't know Curtis's name is not proof of some editing conspiracy theory, for all we know he could've just forgotten. He's even said in past interviews that when he gets the scripts, he skips all the parts that don't have to do with his character. In the very interview that is sourced he even says that he is tired and makes multiple mistakes in the interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max1057 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The showrunners have officially denied the existence of an alternate cut of season eight

In the last interview for Let's Voltron podcast Joaquim Dos Santos and Lauren Montgomery has said that there is no alternate cut of the final season. This should be mentioned somewhere in the editing controversy section. We also need to meet you under the LGBT section that DreamWorks wouldn't allow them to go ahead with their original plan for Shiro and Adam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max1057 (talk • contribs) 10:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

References

I think GeekDad and The Geekiary should be removed from the reception section as trusted sources.

Half the article form the Geekiary is just conspiracy theories. In fact the writer Tyler when posting this on her Twitter put #FreeVLDS8, which is used by people who believe that there is a alternate cut of season eight, which show-runner Joaquim Dos Santos denies existing. Tyler has even called up DreamWorks and World Event Productions demanding they altar season eight. As for Sean Z from Geekdad, he has shown to have a very unprofessional grudge against the show-runners of Voltron. When he got an exclusive from LionForge he spent half the article complaining about why they wouldn't retcon the ending of the show. and most recently he wrote an article which has been called out by professionals in the animation industry as a poorly written hit piece that makes incorrect assumptions. There's plenty on Twitter from animator Julieta Colas about the problems with the article. Max1057 (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

References