Talk:The Orville

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Orville article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph of ensemble cast photo be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

It is requested that a photograph of spaceship be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Orville Banner at San Diego Comic Con.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genre Out-of-Date, Please update

It is no longer "a comedy," although it allows the humor to flow naturally from the interactions between the very relatable ensemble cast.

It now deals with very serious issues and allegories. While the last part of Season 3 lightened up a lot, it's full-on classic science fiction that happens to have a lovable cast. Once you know these folks, you CARE about them.

A 4th season is likely but not confirmed and a massive fan campaign for it's renewal by it's most recent streaming service is underway. 98.149.51.179 (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4th season?

Any information if and when it will go on? Mopsos Sohn des Ampyx (talk) 09:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlightTime (talk • contribs) [reply]

https://productionlist.com/production/orville-season-04/ now claims that shooting will start January 06, 2025. I don't know if this is a good source, but there is hope. 196.249.100.67 (talk) 04:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audience scores

This article previously noted the disparity between the critics scores and audience scores, but it was removed.[1] The editor removed it based on a good faith interpretation of MOS:TVRECEPTION (and WP:UGC), which says that audience scores are not allowed. There had been a consensus to include them, because although TV articles do not generally including the scores doesn't mean they can never be included, such as in cases were other reliable sources such as TV Guide actually talk about the audience scores and indicate a noteworthy disparity. Is there a consensus to exclude the audience scores, or with the benefit of hindsight do editors still think is the disparity between audiences and critics worth keeping? -- 109.76.197.51 (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the inclusionary consensus you mentioned? Audience scores are primarily not included because their accuracy is often not reliable, and not collected or interpreted scientifically to truly represent the ratings of the full audience. —ADavidB 03:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The_Orville/Archive_1#RT_and_Metacritic_audience_scores. Please note carefully that it isn't the specific score that is worth mentioning but if other sources discuss the disparity between audiences and critics then reference to the discussion about the disparity can sometimes be included. -- 109.76.128.3 (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What amazes me in the English Wiki is that it almost never includes any audience scores for movies. Instead, there's constantly the scores from RT, which in most cases sounds like a joke. As if movies were made for those absolutely impartial (sure, sure) reviewers instead of the normal folks. I'm not going tell you what you should do in the English Wikipedia since I'm only involved as a reader, but I'd like to express my dissatisfaction with the fact that it's impossible find out if a movie is good without doing a broader search on the Internet. An Encyclopedia could include something like "the audience liked it" instead of "17 reviews on Rotten Tomato gave it 33%" or "some famous tiktoker John Doe said it's bad" which is in my experience (and not only mine) irrelevant in most cases. This show is a very good example of what I'm talking about. Usually, there are many sources about whether the audience liked a movie. --Xpoback (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have partially restored the comments from TV Guide[2] about audience response (but not comments from YouTube critic Angry Joe). -- 109.76.128.3 (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

End date needs to be removed

The infobox is showing a final broadcast date in 2022. Unless the show has been officially cancelled, and the article does not indicate this has occurred, this should be changed to "present." Although we haven't had confirmation of a 4th season, since it is now a streaming series it isn't beholden to air on an annual basis anymore. Unless a reputable source has indicated cancellation, I would say an end date is premature. 2604:3D09:1F74:1C00:318E:D999:719A:AAE6 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Split Cast list?

An editor proposed splitting the cast list off into a separate article.(diff) I'm not sure it is long enough, and if it is removed a small version of it would probably need to be retained here for context. Maybe it could work but I'm skeptical. Registering my mild opposition to the proposal. -- 109.79.168.37 (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the creation of the article. There actually used to be a separate article for the cast and characters, but the user who originally created the article got banned from Wikipedia. You can find the response to the inquiry I made here. FA24 Phoenix (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure editors that propose these splits are supposed to start a discussion, not tag it and leave, which is why I made my comment above. Since the person who proposed it is AWOL and the tag should be removed.

FA24 Phoenix, interesting. I've seen admins react overzealously and indiscriminately revert all edits from suspected sockpuppets but I've never seen them delete entire articles just because it was created by an editor who misbehaved. If an article previously existed then restoring and reviewing that would seem to be a more productive way to go, and I've nothing against that. I'm reasonably sure you can just put in a request for the old article to be restored. -- 109.76.133.216 (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also in support of the creation of a separate article. The cast section in this article is far too clunky and large for it to be reasonably necessary here. I would much rather have the characters discussed in the Premise section with cast members being referenced in parentheses than to have a section dedicated to character summaries, which add far more clutter to the page than necessary. Conventionally, it is a very ugly and long section that would fit better in the section headers and paragraphs of a separate article. jaka (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]