Talk:Star Wars: The Bad Batch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Grand Moff Tarkin

I apologize if this sounds dumb, but should we include Stephen Stanton because he voice actor Tarkin in the Clone Wars and now he may be possibly voicing Tarkin because he heard him speak from the Bad Batch trailer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MOADooAH1 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

We need a reliable source stating that for us to use in the article. We can't just assume based on the trailer. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Plot Summary Lengths For Different Episodes

Episode Three follows two story lines (the Bad Batch on the moon and Crosshair on Kamino). Episode Two only follows the Bad Batch. Thus, I think it is okay that Episode Three's plot summary is a little longer than Episode Two's.

I don't think a Talk thread on this is needed. Comment that you deleted was absurd. Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

True RaCJ1325 (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Episodes edit war

User:Adamstom.97 repeatedly and persistently keeps adding unneeded, trivial information (especially when interlinks are provided) to the episode plot descriptions, unnecessarily inflating them and therefore escalating this matter into an edit war. Could somebody finally please put their foot down here?! DanielC46 (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I apologise for the edit warring, I should have stopped earlier, but I completely stand by my changes. I did not add "unneeded, trivial information", I added basic, necessary details without which the plot summary makes no sense to someone who does not know Star Wars and has not seen the show. The main characters need to be introduced before you start referencing them, the war they are fighting needs to be introduced before you say that it ends, Order 66 and the clone programming needs to be explained at least a little or none of it makes sense at all, and the stealing/forging chain codes passage from 102 makes no sense without at least a little elaboration. None of this should be up for debate, even if you disagree with the exact wording used. I appreciate wanting to keep the summary brief, but my version is still well under the suggested plot limit and is still giving the smallest amount of details while making sense to new readers. I also agree with the comment that plot summaries should not be a replacement for watching the show itself, but we need to remember that the main reason we are allowed to have plot summaries on Wikipedia is to give context about the show to readers who have not seen it so the production and reception sections make sense. The attempts from other editors have been woefully inadequate, in my opinion. I would also note that I am a pretty experienced Wikipedia editor and have written many of these plot summaries in my time, so I am definitely trying to improve the article here rather than just being some random user trying to insert unnecessary details into it. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I emphasize with your argument to improve contents, and I am a BIG movie fan myself. (That's why I no longer edit for the German wikipedia, ever since some self-righteous individual kept altering my workings for Spider-Man: Homecoming because he kept claiming that I was merely "re-telling" the movie's plot - which I wasn't!) However, statements like "... which is the first time Omega has been off Kamino" - if I saw something like this in the Oxford Dictionary, I would seriously cease believing in its sobrieity. DanielC46 (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I never said mine was the perfect wording, I expected there to be further updates from other editors until a good compromise was found. I did not expect other editors to blanket remove necessary details though. I am honestly quite confused why others are so against making the plot summary understandable for new readers. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe a plot summary should tell just essential details without being overblown. Just to tease or entice to watch an episode (or movie) on its own, not make a novel out of it. DanielC46 (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

As I have pointed out, you have omitted some pretty essential details and frankly the additions I made were far from overblown. And while I can see where you are coming from with the teasing sentiment, unfortunately that is not why we have plot summaries on Wikipedia. Per WP:TVPLOT, "plot summaries provide context, allowing a reader who has not seen the work to understand the other sections of the article that comment on the plot". Leaving out key details just to confuse people who haven't seen the show so they have to go watch it is not what we do here. So far the only legitimate issue you have raised here (besides the edit warring, which I apologise for again) is the "which is the first time Omega has been off Kamino" clause, so why don't we just leave that bit out and restore the essential details? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that you added a link to Clone troopers#Animation instead of explaining why the clones are compelled to obey orders. Unfortunately that is a violation of WP:EGG and is not useful since the reader will not know what part of that link they are supposed to be looking for. It is also completely unnecessary since we can explain it to them in just a few words here. I also see a note has been added saying we don't need to introduce the Bad Batch since they are introduced in the cast section, but that is also bad practice because it is common for readers to skip straight to the plot summary so we should at least attempt to make it stand on its own. It is also highly likely that the cast and episode sections will not be together forever and/or will not be in the current order forever as is standard for TV series on Wikipedia. Again, it is an unnecessary change from the standards given a couple extra words is all it takes to introduce them again and clarify for the reader. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@RaCJ1325: Since you have decided to change the plot summaries without participating in the discussion about the plot summaries, I am inviting you here to explain yourself. You have removed essential details from the plot summaries with the edit summary "Fixed the plot summaries", and in doing so are violating MOS:PLOT and MOS:TVPLOT. As is explained in those guidelines, the whole reason that we have plot summaries is to give context to the rest of the article, including the cast list. By removing essential details with the assumption that the reader can just read the rest of this article plus other articles to figure out what is going on, you have failed at the one point that plot summaries need to succeed on. It is also completely unnecessary since these summaries are well under the word limit and do not need to be made more concise for concision's sake. I see at your talk page that you have also had issues with writing plot summaries at other articles so perhaps you need to educate yourself on how we write these summaries before you revert next time. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: (Sorry if I do this in the wrong format I haven't done anything in a talk page for a while). "Fixed the plot summaries" was a bad description that is my fault and I apologize. As for the issues I had with another editor with other plot summaries, that was because I was making plot summaries too long. The episodes I was editing were longer (45-50 minutes maybe) so I added too much detail and the episode summaries ended up being well over the desired limit. I fixed that issue. You make a good point that the episode summaries are nowhere near maximum length, and if you feel more detail can and should be added, then I think that is great. I apologize for causing issues within this page. RaCJ1325 (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I will say, however, that previous edits to plot summaries have included what I really do believe to be unnecessary details. For example, one edit included the detail of Omega going out of the bounds of Cut's residence and almost getting attacked by an animal (from episode two). I believe a detail like this was unnecessary to this plot summary, as that subplot of the episode was easily summed up in the sentence "Hunter wants to sent Omega with Cut as he thinks she needs a family". I was told (partially from the issue I had with plot summaries previously) that regardless of how short the episode is or how short the summary already is, only the general idea of the episode needs to be included in the plot summary. I am all for detailed plot summaries, but am given to understand that this is not the place for them. RaCJ1325 (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit War Over

Thank you for your response. I think we are finally getting somewhere, but I still think it is crucial for readers to understand the inhibitor chip / programming / Order 66 side of things. I have given it another go with a short sentence in the 102 summary and left the other details out. If you let me know what you think we can discuss any further changes that are needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If you think readers need more elaboration on that stuff, then that is fine. However, I think it sounds better if we introduce the Bad Batch like this, "while the Bad Batch--defective clones Hunter, Tech, Crosshair, and Wrecker and former 501st clone Echo--are assisting", for the 1x1 summary, without the (). The () make it feel like an afterthought of unnecessary information, and we came to the conclusion that a detailed introduction of the Bad Batch members was crucial. RaCJ1325 (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I have updated the formatting to use dashes instead. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

premise section - inhibitor chips

The Premise section is just one sentence, there is not even a mention of the inhibitor chip, hence, why the team when rogue in the first place. Surely the whole section could do with a bit of expansion. Govvy (talk) 09:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to Be Bold and add that content. Ckruschke (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Panjabi as a starring actor

Per WP:TVCAST: The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such cast members remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. (all bolding mine). For the most part, Bad Batch credits can be considered as "Starring" (aka "main") or "Guest". For episode 101, "Starring" (starting at 1:10:38) is Baker, Panjabi, then Ang. As pointed out in the quoted text above, we must follow the order given to us by the series. Why Panjabi is in the "Starring" credits, we are not privy to that info, but it should not preclude her from be noted as such in the section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree for now, but if we reassess at the end of the season I think this will be one of the cases where we can make an exception. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

IMO its pretty ridiculous to mandate that one voice actor be listed as "starring" when the actor had a one-shot 5 min role in one show. Seems like someone has a non-NPOV about this actor... Also listing every single voice actor as a "Guest" is going to create an ever-growing, gigantic list. Need to cull the herd now before someone codifies the current names. Ckruschke (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

We can't dictate how the producers chose to credit Panjabi or know of the behind the scenes workings such as contracts that made this as such. TVCAST is clear: we should follow the order of broadcast credits. This should be reexamined at the end of the scene if it needs further adjustments as Adamstom.97 said, but it should not change before then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we at least put "episode 1 only" or something like that? You get things like this on other articles where say the cast changed over time, so like one character might say "series 1-3" where another is "series 1-6" or another "Series 2-5" (all examples obviously)

- it is at best misleading to call her Main star when she's only been in one episode, but if it does have to be done because the show calls her main, then we can at least clarify it to avoid implying to readers that she's longer term. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 07:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Post-season reassessment

So, I think it is pretty clear that there is some appetite for removing Panjabi from the starring cast. She is only listed as starring in the first episode and doesn't even appear in any other episodes. Favre has pointed out the guideline that we generally follow above, so if we are to follow that here then the best solution will probably be to add a note explaining why she is starring. However, we can always make exceptions to guidelines with talk page consensus if required, in which case we could move her to the guest star section (we should probably still add an explanatory note though). I think it makes sense to go with option 2, and I think that is what most people will want, but it would be good to get a clear consensus here before we do anything and then we can always point here as an explanation for why we are differing from the standard approach. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

If we do have to blindly follow the rules even when common sense dictates otherwise, then the text should note "episode 1 only" - as I say, I see no difference between that and TV series where the main cast changes, and there's a note about which series they were main for.

but the far more sensible option - and my preferred one - is indeed put her as guest, as she was only in one episode - and if protocol demands we note that she was put as "starring" for that episode, then note that in the text. 141.92.129.42 (talk) 10:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Just as an example of a precedent for common sense when recording main cast- see Torchwood#Cast. Indira Varma is downs as Suzie Costello - with the article noting "featured". There is then a note correctly pointing out that for episode one, she was down as "main cast" - but was then killed off - and only appeared once more as "guest" afterwards. So yes, I do think that Wikipedia should be allowed to use common sense as it does o nthat article with a similar style of listing here. 141.92.129.44 (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

As I said back in May, its absurd to have a one off character "starring" as a nod to blindly following some rule that clearly doesn't fit the situation. As the IP editor explains above, my overwhelming assumption is that there are MANY more examples of one-off characters shown as guest stars (or barely mentioned at all) all probably without explanatory notes. Blindly following esoteric rules is not how Wikipedia was setup to operate. Ckruschke (talk) 17:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Move to guest section. I think this is a pretty clear case of WP:IAR. Keeping her name in the main cast section would only confuse the reader, who we are supposed to inform. If someone really thinks her name being placed in the main credits is important, then we can add an explanatory footnote. Yeeno (talk) 🍁

Ok, we're over a week into this - and we've got 4 people arguing for a common sense move, and no objections. I think barring any huge arguments for the status quo we're at the stage of making the change. I'll give Favre1fan93 a few more days to respond (notfied on their talk page) thoguh. [for transparency this is the same IP as above - work IP seems to rotate] 141.92.129.44 (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Move her to guest, add in an {{efn}} stating she was credited as starring actor for her appearance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I have made the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

S 2, ep 13 - reference to Turkey–Syria earthquake??

1) The tsunami was caused by earthquake.

2) Ep 13 was released March 15 2023.

3) The Turkey–Syria earthquake happened February 6 2023.

My opinion is that it's good to connect this ep and 2023 Turkey–Syria earthquake. 185.34.241.235 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Tsunamis caused by earthquakes are very common, and this episode has probably been in development for at least a year. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing controversy

Hi all, first time using the talk feature on Wikipedia so I'm pretty new to this, apologies. Just wondering if there should be a section about the whitewashing controversy? TLDR: the Bad Batch, who despite having genetic differences, are still clones of Jango Fett, played by Temuera Morrision (a Maori man), which is why many fans are upset that almost none of TBB look like people of colour, with the exception of Wrecker, which is a problem in itself. A handy carrd is complied here. -Lis 101.180.72.206 (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not against mentioning this in the article but I personally never felt it received enough coverage in sources to justify its inclusion here. It does seem to mostly be a few fans complaining on social media about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Me again, although the petition indicates almost 4500 (4317) people are invested in the cause, I understand that percentage wise compared to the rest of TBB viewers that's probably not a lot (don't have numbers on hand unfortunately, may try to find some later), however it has been covered by several 'larger' online news (? not sure if that's the right descriptor) sites such as Collider, The Mary Sue, GameRant, The Gamer etc. I'd also like to get more opinions on this to see what the majority think :) -Lis 101.180.72.206 (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I would say those sources are enough for us to mention it somewhere in the article, though I don't think it needs a whole section. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that sounds good! What part do you think it should be mentioned under? I'm hesitant to add anything myself, particularly because of how new I am to this :) -Lis Statuesquue (talk) 04:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate place would be the end of the Critical response section. Feel free to have a go adding it and I or another experienced editor will help clean it up if needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at writing a small addition! Hopefully it works :) -Lis (talk) 04:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)