Talk:Star Trek: Prodigy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: nice work.

North8000 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Animation[edit]

Has animation work actually begun on the series? That is, is it actually out of the pre-production phase? The Animation section doesn't talk of this. -- /Alex/21 03:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding based on the content in the animation section that work on the animation has already begun. Regardless, we don't actually need animation to begin for the article to be in the mainspace since TV articles technically only need to be generally notable, and this one clearly is that. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Producer credits[edit]

Regarding adamstom97's comment, "We generally don't list those types of producers, especially if they are just writers who will be credited appropriately elsewhere," if you read the articles, it seems they are as much creative producers as the others listed in the infobox, and not "just writers" -- the article cited doesn't list Macgregor Middleton as a writer at all. I would err on the side of including them both rather than not, especially if there are reputable sources provided and they are important parts of the creative team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EternalShadows123 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds like the standard situation, unless we get a more reliable source explaining why this is different. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About Nickelodeon Animation Studio...[edit]

Highly doubt Nickelodeon Animation Studio's gonna be involved with the project. It's Pony wasn't produced by Nickelodeon, just broadcast.

--XSMan2016 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source? This is correct per the information that has been released previously. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor[edit]

Where is the rule about only including country of origin distributor in the infobox?? Template:Infobox television says to include the original distributors of the series. As the series hasn't aired yet, I'm pretty sure ViacomCBS Global Distribution Group would be considered an original distributor. Heartfox (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original distributor would be the distributor in the originating country, with subsequent distribution to other countries not being the original one. This is consistent across most TV/film infoboxes, where we generally just include details for the country of origin. That is why we won't be adding CTV Sci-Fi Channel as an original network for this series either. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mulgrew "reprises" her role?[edit]

The article lead says that Mulgrew "reprises" her role from Star Trek Voyager. This seems incorrect to me. She is playing the role of the hologram Janeway, which is based on the actual human Janeway but clearly not the same person. (Presumably, the original Janeway is still alive at the time the series is set (2383) and living in the Alpha Quadrant, while this hologram Janeway is in the Delta Quadrant.) In a similar way, the Voyager character of The Doctor was based on Dr Lewis Zimmerman, but they are considered two separate characters and even interacted with each other (such as in the episode "Life Line"). Kidburla (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From a WP:REALWORLD perspective she is returning to the role of Janeway, even if it is technically a different version of the character from an in-universe perspective. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with real world perspective or in-universe. The sentence is clearly written from a real world perspective, as Kate Mulgrew does not exist in-universe. It is a different "version" of the character from a real-world perspective. We could say that she is "returning" to the character in the sense that she will have a renewed involvement with this character. However that's not the same as saying she will reprise the role. Kidburla (talk) 00:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to link to MOS:REALWORLD above, my bad. Your argument is that it is a new role so she can't be reprising it, and that is true when considering all the fictional details, but from the perspective of real-world production and reception sources that is irrelevant as what is noteworthy is she is coming back to play Janeway again. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the notable fact is that she is coming back to play Janeway. So can't we find a way to say this without wording it in a way that's incorrect? Even if you say it's only "technically incorrect", it's still incorrect, and I don't think we should be stating incorrect information in an encyclopedia. I am also not sure what you meant by "real-world production and reception sources" and what your basis is for thinking they consider the distinction to be irrelevant. I'm sure the producers of the show are well aware that this is a different character, for the reasons mentioned above. Kidburla (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was "technically incorrect", I said it was only true from a non-encyclopaedic perspective. By "real-world production and reception sources" I am referring to the reliable sources that discuss the series and its production which are where we get our information from. From their perspective (rather than the perspective of the fictional characters or Star Trek fans) she is returning to her previous role, even if it is for a new version if the character. "Kate Mulgrew was announced to be reprising her role of Kathryn Janeway from Star Trek: Voyager" and "who appears as the ship's Emergency Training Hologram" are both correct based on our sources and are clearly stated in the article with sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I paraphrased. You said it was technically a different version of the character, that's what I meant. I don't agree that it's only true from a non-encyclopedic perspective. It's true from an encyclopedic perspective as we are talking about different characters both of which appear within a work. That has nothing to do with perspective. I'm quite familiar with the concept of real world versus in universe perspective. Examples of things which are only true from an in-universe perspective would be "a hologram of Janeway was developed" or "Earth made first contact with Vulcans in 2063". Here we are talking about the role which a real-life actor is playing, which from a real-world perspective is the character of hologram Janeway, that is a different character from human Janeway. I have had a look at the sources in the article, and the ones which talk about Mulgrew reprising her role are the ones from quite some time ago before it was announced that this is a different version of the character (e.g. sources from 2020). More recent sources such as [1] use different language such as "a whole new Janeway". Therefore I don't think it's correct to still put that she is reprising her role. Kidburla (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Please note that as usually happens with tv shows the Reception section is dominated by reviews of the first episode. It may make sense to replace them later with reviews that cover the whole 10 episodes of the season if and when they become available, but those were the sources available at the time, and no one else had done it so I went ahead and included them. (Some reviewers may have also previewed the second episode, not sure.) So while Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores are presented as a score for all of season 1, please remember that they are skewed in favor of the first episode and continue to maintain a healthy level of scepticism. -- 109.77.207.230 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cast for the first season[edit]

Keeping track of the cast to help determine who is recurring as well as credit order: - adamstom97 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Main
  • Brett Gray as Dal R'El
  • Ella Purnell as Gwyn
  • Jason Mantzoukas as Jankom Pog
  • Angus Imrie as Zero
  • Rylee Alazraqui as Rok-Tahk
  • Dee Bradley Baker as Murf
  • Jimmi Simpson as Drednok
  • John Noble as the Diviner
  • Kate Mulgrew as Captain Janeway
Just want to point out that Mulgrew's character credit was changed from "Captain Janeway" to "Hologram Janeway" after a couple of episodes. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
101

No other cast

102
  • Bonnie Gordon as Ship Computer 101 102 103 104 105 106 108 109 110 111 112 115 116 117 119 120 Tal Shiar #4 115 Brenari Ensign 119
    • Gordon
103
    • Gordon
104
    • Gordon
105
    • Gordon
106
  • Robert Beltran as Captain Chakotay 106 107 108 111 116 118 120
  • René Auberjonois as Odo (archive audio) 106
  • James Doohan as Scotty (archive audio) 106
  • Nichelle Nichols as Uhura (archive audio) 106
  • Leonard Nimoy as Spock (archive audio) 106
  • David Ruprecht as Kobayashi Maru Captain (archive audio) 106
  • Gates McFadden as Dr. Beverly Crusher 106
  • Brook Chalmers as Klingon #1 106 Passerby 114 Tal Shiar #2 115 Maximillion 116
    • Beltran, Auberjonois, Doohan, Nichols, Nimoy, Ruprecht, Gordon, McFadden, Chalmers
107
  • Grey Griffin as Nandi 107 108
  • Melissa Villasenor as Nandi / frail woman 107
    • Beltran, Griffin, Villasenor
108
    • Beltran, Gordon, Griffin
109
    • Gordon
110
  • Laila Berzins as Ankle Restraint 110 Miner #1 110
  • Jameela Jamil as Asencia 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 118 119
  • Rania Sharkawy as Caitian Child 110
  • Ben Thomas as Spike Headed Alien 110, Miner #2 110 The Borg 112 Tal Shiar #1 115 Blue Caitian 116 Officers 119 Klingon officer 120
  • Debra Wilson as Miners 110
    • Berzins, Gordon, Jamil, Sharkawy, Thomas, Wilson
111
  • Jason Alexander as Noum 111 112 113 114 117 118 119
  • Eric Bauza as Barniss Frex 111 114 Scott'Ee 113 Sool'U 113 Vulcan justice 120
  • Daveed Diggs as Tysess 111 113 114 115 116 118 119 120
    • Alexander, Beltran, Bauza, Diggs, Gordon, Jamil
112
    • Alexander, Gordon, Jamil, Thomas
113
  • Samantha Smith as Huur'A 113
  • Fred Tatasciore as Dr. Boons 113 Ensign Garrovick 114 Sprok 113
    • Alexander, Bauza, Diggs, Jamil, Smith, Tatasciore
114
  • Kimberly Brooks as Commander Kaseth 114 115
  • Billy Campbell as Thadiun Okona 114 115
    • Alexander, Bauza, Brooks, Campbell, Diggs, Jamil, Chalmers
115
  • Ronny Cox as Admiral Jellico 115 119
  • Amy Hill as Doctor Jago 115
    • Brooks, Campbell, Chalmers, Cox, Diggs, Gordon, Hill, Jamil, Thomas
116
  • Zehra Fazal as Boxy 116
  • Tommie Earl Jenkins as Adreek-Hu 116
    • Beltran, Chalmers, Diggs, Fazal, Gordon, Jamil, Jenkins, Thomas
117
    • Alexander, Gordon
118
    • Alexander, Beltran, Diggs, Jamil
119
  • Debra Wilson as Captain Trij 119 Officer 120
    • Alexander, Cox, Diggs, Gordon, Jamil, Thomas, Wilson
120
  • Erin MacDonald as Doctor MacDonald 120
    • Bauza, Beltran, Diggs, Gordon, MacDonald, Thomas, Wilson

Paramount+/Nickelodeon edit battle[edit]

There seems to be an edit war brewing over whether this series is a joint production of both Paramount+ and Nickelodeon or just one of them. In edit descriptions, one editor compares the series history with that of Big Nate. I understand that Prodigy is much more of a joint production than the other series. How about some actual sourced data on the situation, or at least some more detailed discussion? —ADavidB 16:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that are in the article quite clearly show that the series was ordered by Nickelodeon, is co-produced by their studio, still has Nickelodeon in its logo, and Nickelodeon has the right to air each set of episodes before the next set can be released anywhere. It premiered on Paramount+ first, which is clearly stated, but to say it was solely created for Paramount+ and not Nickelodeon as well is disingenuous and does not align with our sources. It does not matter how another series has been treated, we have to go off the information available for this series. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization after a colon[edit]

It seems MOS:COLON was cited incorrectly in an edit summary as justification for using a capital letter after a colon. The text there states, "When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon". The text that immediately follows colons in this article's "Cast and characters" section does not include complete sentences and no other reason for capitalization is evident. —ADavidB 04:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I cited MOS:COLON without double checking it and looks like it has changed since I last read it, so that is my bad. What it used to say is "Sometimes the word following a colon is capitalized, if that word effectively begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially if the colon serves to introduce more than one sentence." I believe this is also a rule in general for American writing and I do not know why it was removed from MOS:COLON. Here there is potential for there to be a full paragraph for each character bullet (and already some of them have multiple sentence descriptions) like many other TV series have, and we definitely want to be consistent within the article. The other thing is there is a convention at many film and TV articles to put a break between the colon and the descriptive paragraph for each bullet if there is more than one or two sentences for each (so we aren't there yet with this article) in which case we definitely need a capital after the colon. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that if these cast descriptions are expanded into full sentences or paragraphs, it would make sense to format them differently, even capitalizing the word after the colon if it's the start of a complete sentence. Until such time, we do not need a capital there. I'm all for consistency within the article, which is why I had made my change everywhere it occurred in the article. —ADavidB 11:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But we do already have several cast members with multiple sentence descriptions that should have a capital after the colon, and if we are being consistent that means they should all have a capital already. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a twist or misinterpretaton of what MOS:COLON states. The determination for whether the character after the colon is capitalized is whether what directly follows it is a complete sentence, not whether there are sentences after that. What you wrote that the guideline used to say also hinges on the "word following a colon", capitalizing it "if that word begins a new grammatical sentence, and especially" ("and", not "or") if it "introduce[s] more than one sentence." —ADavidB 23:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how you are interpreting it, my interpretation is what was discussed at the time that the current version of MOS:TVCAST was developed. I think it would be more productive to move this discussion there or somewhere else with a lot of TV editor eyes on it since this does not apply just to this article. The fact that the article's current formatting is standard in many film and TV articles suggests that multiple people will be interested in having a say on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing or ignoring my point. Consider:
In this example, "A famous Starfleet security officer who appears as a hologram." is not a complete/grammatical sentence. If it were, the "A" at its start would properly be capitalized, especially because it also introduces more than one sentence. As it is now, the "A" after the colon should not be capitalized per MOS:COLON. The portion after the colon could be modified into a complete sentence, such as "This famous Starfleet security officer appears as a hologram." Capitalization of the first character – "T" in this case – would then be appropriate. —ADavidB 23:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding MOS:TVCAST, only one of the three examples given there includes a colon, and it's followed by a lower-case "a". The other two examples include a comma, also followed by a lower-case "a". —ADavidB 01:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not missing or ignoring anything, but it seems you didn't read my message at all. You and I clearly have different interpretations of this rule and it applies to many TV articles, not just this one, so I am asking for us to move this discussion to a more appropriate place where a wider discussion can be had to clear it up. Do you oppose doing that? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I began the discussion here at your edit summary suggestion. You have not acknowledged as applicable the lower-case guideline examples I have highlighted, so it is clear we will get nowhere. I've searched the MOS:TVCAST talk page archives for any discussions including use of a capital letter following a colon – whether in accordance with MOS:COLON or not – and did not find them. It will take me a while to frame a new discussion there on this matter when I do not have access to the past TVCAST discussions you've described. —ADavidB 02:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting the discussion. You are making it sound like I am ignoring or dismissing suggestions and that is definitely not my intention, I just want to make sure we do this correctly because if there is a genuine issue that requires a change here then I know there are many television article that will also need to be changed which is why I prefer that we have this discussion with a wider group of editors. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“First Star Trek series aimed at kids”[edit]

To me, while the specific source used says such, is disingenuous. We know The Animated Series was first. I think the most comparable situation is Disney touting Frozen II as the highest-grossing animated film of all time when it’s actually The Lion King 2019, but Disney treats it as a live action remake. Wikipedia gives the title to The Lion King 2019. I don’t understand letting PR speak get in the way of facts--CreecregofLife (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about PR speak, it's about reliable sources. We have reliable sources stating that Prodigy is the first Star Trek series aimed at kids, and we have discussion from the producers on how they approached that. On the other hand, the article on Star Trek: The Animated Series specifically states that it was not aimed at kids. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the animated series won an emmy for children's programming Aaron Bruce (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it was "aimed at kids". - adamstom97 (talk) 00:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like any show that aired on broadcast TV on Saturday mornings (in the pre-cable days) would be "aimed at kids" by someone at the network - there was nothing but children's programming in that timeslot (see Saturday-morning cartoon for context). Where there might be a sticking point here is that the show producers pretty evidently just wanted to make decent science fiction, so weren't writing or directing "kids' stories," even if they were stuck in a children's programming slot. Was the show aimed at kids? Well, it was and it wasn't at the same time, depending on who and how you ask. --grant (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the people who actually made the show would take priority there, and they are the ones who said they didn't want it to be just for kids. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They were working in a time when working on children's media was seen as less legitimate or serious than media for adults, so they had an interest—as a point of pride, but also in furtherance of their careers—in claiming they weren't creating a children's show. Their word is not automatic proof that the show wasn't a children's show; it is only one piece of evidence. Let's take a look at that evidence:
  • Evidence supporting the assertion that TAS was a children's show:
  • Evidence against the assertion that TAS was a children's show:
    • Some of the people who worked on it claimed they didn't approach it as if they were making a children's show.
That evidence against is not very convincing; the way the writers or producers treated the show (or claimed to treat the show) behind the scenes doesn't at all negate the fact that it was marketed at children, aired during a timeslot dedicated for children's programming, and seen by the entire industry as a children's show to the point where it was nominated twice in a children's category. Can we please put this ridiculous notion that it "wasn't a children's show" to rest? -Literally Satan (talk) 17:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about which demographic the people making the show intended it for, not who it actually ended up being watched by or categorised for. Of course it was aired during a children't timeslot and nominated in children's awards categories, it was a family-friendly animated show in the 70s. That doesn't change the fact that the people making the show did not make it just for kids, while the people who made this show did specifically make it for kids. Your argument would be fair if we were saying Prodigy is the first child-focused Star Trek series or something to that effect, but we are saying that it is the first Star Trek series where the people making it intended it to be for children specifically, and that is true not to mention supported by sources. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say Prodigy is "the first Star Trek series where the people making it intended it to be for children specifically"; it says it's "the first Star Trek series to target younger audiences". Targeting a demographic is done by more than just the writers (whose word, as I argue above, we cannot blindly take at face value on this issue in the first place). It's also done by the production company, the network, the stations airing it, and the advertisers. This entire apparatus produced, aired, and marketed it for children. Even if we take the writers at their word that they weren't targeting the show towards children, the show itself was targeted towards children, which means Prodigy is not the first such Star Trek series but the second. -Literally Satan (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My explanation stands, as do our sources, regardless of the fact that you WP:DONTLIKEIT. If you had sources to support your argument then we might have something to discuss, but at the moment we are just wasting time. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

20 episodes[edit]

Hi, @Piotrus. How about a press-release of CBS? IKhitron (talk) 11:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IKhitron That would be much better :) Should we correct the infobox (which states 10)? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox states how many episodes have aired. Which is 10 CreecregofLife (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IKhitron You are... correct. That's strange (not that you are correct, but that that this is how we do things). Oh well. I started a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_television#Total_planned_episodes_not_listed?. I think it would be much better for the reader if the infobox said 10 out of 20, not just 10. Carry on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ps. Meant to ping @CreecregofLife Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s how many episodes have aired. Just because you’ve ordered a pizza doesn’t mean you’ve gotten your whole pizza yet CreecregofLife (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"To use 3D animation" or "To be animated in 3D"[edit]

In my reading of the opening section, not having previously edited the page, it seemed a miswording to describe Prodigy as "the first to use 3D animaton" because there have been countless examples of 3D computer-generated animations, dating back to the 'Genesis' sequence in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, to the Crystalline Entity in TNG and every studio model in Enterprise.

[...] Prodigy is the first Star Trek series to target younger audiences and is also the first to use 3D animation. [...]

— Extract from the current opening paragraph on Star Trek: Prodigy

Albeit very minor, I think makes more sense when changed to "the first to be animated in 3D". In my opinion, the difference is to state it merely uses 3D is not specific and overstates how CGI has been used in Star Trek. Whereas, I think describing it as being animated in 3D implies it being wholly non-live action and is in line with phrases like "traditionally animated" in the context of Star Trek: Lower Decks (computer generated in that computers are used) and Star Trek: The Animated Series.

It's not my intention to start an edit war over such a small change, for example ​Adamstom.97 did not read it in the same way, hence suggesting it here to gauge general interpretation of that sentence. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just going to pop in here to note that the current phrasing is the result of a previous concern over not saying it's the first series to use computer animation, which it is not as LD uses it extensively for ships and other items, even if they're digitally colored to match the hand drawn digital ink-and-paint of the characters. Digital ink-and-paint also is done on a computer, but it's hand drawn not rendered. As such, I propose that the the wording be changed to "the first Star Trek series to solely use 3D-rendered animation". oknazevad (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying Bacon Noodles and I agree with oknazevad that we just need to clarify the wording. I have updated the article, happy to continue discussing if there are still concerns. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes titles[edit]

Hi. Is this a good source for all the episodes titles? IKhitron (talk) 14:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That could be used temporarily, but it would be better to find a source that has those all in text rather than relying on a Twitter video. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like this one? There are 56 links to this site part in articles, so it looks like reliable source here, I think. IKhitron (talk) 11:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FYIO[edit]

Surprisingly, looks like the rest of the season premieres today and next week on Nickelodeon CEE. IKhitron (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is no part 1 and part 2[edit]

There is in the written by a part 1 amd another brownish bar that says part 2 , it's still all on season 1 there is no parts ... can someone please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.204.185 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first season has been released in two parts, with a mid-season finale and a nine month break between episodes. That needs to be marked somehow, and the producers have referred to them as parts one and two of the season, so we follow suit. oknazevad (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announced to be cancelled 2 days ago[edit]

Multiple sources reporting as of two days ago the show js being canceled and removed from Paramount+. Should be mentioned in the article. Alx rms (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three times already there isn't enough? IKhitron (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon airing[edit]

Just to confirm, did Nickelodeon cancel its broadcast before the second half of the season aired? It's implied that after the first portion of Season 1 that only Paramount+ aired it after; and the recent cancellation news has only mentioned Paramount+, not Nickelodeon (in Canada it aired on CTV Sci-Fi for the whole run). 136.159.160.121 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, only the first half of Season 1 aired on Nickelodeon; they did not air the second half. -- Alex_21 TALK 21:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

france.tv[edit]

@Smeagol 17: Please stop edit warring, you have made the same edit four times now. Websites are italicized, pointing to articles where that isn't the case is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and not valid justification for continuing to edit war. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are? If my examples are "other stuff exists", then please give a link to the rule that says so. Smeagol 17 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at any web reference, the website names are italicized by default. You may have found other articles where this is not consistenly done outside of the references, but at the modern Star Trek articles we are consistent with this formatting in and out of references. You can't just arbitrarily change the set formatting for an article without a good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In article body, at least, they are italized when they are also the names of newspapers/magazines, not any other sites. (Also, references and article body are not the same thing). Smeagol 17 (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline involved is MOS:MAJORWORKS. Per that, web sites are only italicized if they're web versions of the sorts of works that would be italicized if they were print sources. As france.tv is the streaming service of France's national broadcaster, it wouldn't be italicized any more than Netflix or Paramount+. Smeagol is correct. oknazevad (talk) 15:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this is actually covered by MOS:ITALICWEBSITE, which says differently. However, it does seem to indicate that even when we italicise a website in a reference that does not necessarily mean it should be italicised in text, so I will conceed this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek:_Prodigy&oldid=1219696520"