Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Jeffrey Wright's character description

I suggest changing Jeffrey Wright's character description in the Cast and characters section of the article to:

• Jeffrey Wright as Bernard Lowe, a host created to mimic the appearance of Dr. Ford’s dead partner, Arnold, also portrayed by Wright; Head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software.

The reason i am suggesting this edit be made is that the word "android" that is currently being used to describe Bernard's character might be inaccurate, as PizzaMan has pointed out. The word "host" is more accurate, as it has been used by the producers of the show in the Entertainment Weekly interview i have cited, of which i had no knowledge when i was in favor of using the word "android" to describe the character. Mentioning Arnold helps the reader fully understand the actor's involvement in the show, and also explains why we have a host operating outside the park. -- (Radiphus) 04:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

References

While this is not a solution for the rfc on spoilers, on which we disagree, I agree with this proposal as it was my idea to remove the term Android as per the discussion below. I hope everyone agrees that using Android to describe Bernard is original research. Perhaps a slight edit to the otherwise well phrased proposal, to leave open the possibility that Bernard is more than a mimic. He may contain parts of Arnold's body and even his brain and thus consciousness for all we know. Something like: ...a host mimicing Dr. Ford’s dead partner, Arnold, ... This leaves his status more open. Until the rfc is resolved, this is a clear improvement imho. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC) Edit: just to be clear: i think we should leave such spoilers out of the cast and charters section. However, if we do leave it in (and while the rfc is ongoing), this is a better description. PizzaMan (♨♨) 05:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Are there any hosts who are not androids and, if so, what are they? The article's lead says "The story takes place in the fictional Westworld, a technologically advanced Wild West–themed amusement park populated by android hosts." This being the case, if there are no hosts who are not androids, I don't see the issue. There are a couple of suggestions below regarding the character, specifically that he might be a synthetic organism, or have a body that is part non-biological, or maybe that he is a cyborg. However, the source used says he is a robot, which really doesn't cover any of those. "Robot" is fairly definitive. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey @AussieLegend: which word are you in favor of using? Android, robot or host? Since the producers have referred to Bernard as a host, i believe it would be better to describe him as a host mostly for consistency reasons, taking into account the other characters' descriptions. I also believe it is necessary to mention Arnold, not only because it is another character portrayed by Wright, but it will also help distinguish Bernard's role from that of the other hosts. -- (Radiphus) 16:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

This is why I asked my question, which has gone unanswered. The article says android hosts. Are there any hosts who are not androids? If not then it really doesn't matter which word is used. On one hand, consistency by using "host" is good but on the other, "host" is really an ambiguous term for readers who may not be fans of the program. I don't watch the program and I was confused at first. I still am to a certain extent. What do they host? Tupperware parties? Game shows? It isn't really explained. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I hope i am not ruining the show for you but... The hosts are robots put inside a Wild West–themed amusement park. They have no understanding of their nature, and every day new guests (real humans) arrive to the park and go on adventures with the robots/hosts. Most hosts seem to be designed synthetic organisms (androids), but in Bernard's case, he is a robot that looks like another character, a human being named Arnold, who died before Bernard's creation by Arnold's partner, Dr. Ford. Though still an AI robot, it could be that Bernard is in fact a cyborg created from Arnold's body. There is no proof on that, but it remains a possibility. When PizzaMan brought this up, i had to search the web for articles describing Bernard as an "android" and i couldn't find a source that seemed reliable to me. However, i did find this Entertainment Weekly interview i mentioned above. The reason there was a debate regarding Bernard's description as a host, is that he doesn't operate inside the park, so he is not interacting with the guests directly. Ford has made him Head of the Westworld Programming Division and programmer of artificial people's software. -- (Radiphus) 12:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Episode 2 release date

@AlexTheWhovian: Since this minor but clear-cut issue is apparently being relitigated again... see Talk:Westworld (TV series)/Archive 1#Episode 2 release date. Yes, it's called "air date." It doesn't actually mean going over the airwaves even for the television release date, since HBO is a cable network not a broadcast network. It's just like how video games don't have anything to do with VCRs or "video". "Air date" is just a synonym for "release date." And the standard is very clear on this: Wikipedia uses the first official release date. This means that films or television episodes that are released in non-US markets first have that date listed as their release; the same for showings at special studio; the same for limited exclusivity periods to some partner. It's no different in this case; the episode was released on October 7 with a limited exclusivity period to their online streaming service. If you feel really strongly about it, we can do what User:Joeyconnick suggested at the time: change the column name to "release date." Fixed.

As a procedural note, please don't say "please get consensus first". I linked you to the talk page discussion; you're the one who should get consensus for your change from the way the article was for 8 months, which included the "wrong" date in the footnote. Now, there's no shame in that, WP:BRD and all. Maybe consensus has changed. Maybe it hasn't. But the consensus comes from talk page discussions, not just asserting it's on your side. SnowFire (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It is clear that no consensus was formed with that discussion, so yes, you need to gain consensus. As an experienced editor, it is a shame that you do not understand this policy. Did it air on October 7? No. It aired on October 9. It truly is clear-cut - the column is titled "Original air date" and not "Original release date". Yes, the two are very different - see the documentation for that template, if you've the time and will to do so. Episode list: "This is the date the episode first aired on TV, or is scheduled to air." Episode table for the released parameter: "Determines whether the episodes were released online or aired." Please provide examples that support your opinion with this format; I can certainly do so with multiple articles. If you wish to change the meaning for the airing of an episode, you need to do so elsewhere, or provide support for your un-backed claim of "Wikipedia uses the first official release date." Cheerio. -- Alex^TW 08:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about the slow response.

First, procedural matter. Stop acting like I was acting against policy or against consensus before. If you want to hash this issue out now, fine! But I'm sorry, at the time, the consensus was not on the side of using the TV airdate then. I believe at least one editor not in the discussion "thanked" my edit as well. Joeyconnick, Wikipedical, and myself were in favor of using the "first" release date. LLArrow was intially in favor of the HBO date, but changed his mind. AffeL made a single post in support of the television date. So call that 3-1-1. That seems like a consensus to me. (Again, I am not asking that you AGREE with it, merely that it was a reasonable interpretation of the events of the time.)

Second. While WP:TVOVERVIEW is more talking about seasons than episodes, I think this gets across the general policy, which is that the literal first air date should be used, rather than the normal premiere, if there's some sort of network preview going on. This is an exactly analogous case. And again, it's a case that's come up before for film releases - too many examples to list, but check any ol' random one. They'll mention the "preview" date.

You're referencing template documentation. I disagree that "these are very different" for air date vs. release date, but whatever. I changed the header to say "release date" so there's no argument about definitions. Is this an acceptable solution? (EDIT: Well, @Brojam: apparently disagrees with switching this over... I'm personally fine with airdate + a footnote, but I thought that "release date" would be an acceptable compromise, and it's not like this is an unusual term for television release dates as well.) SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I support the table containing the earlier date (this is the current state of the article). I believe this is the more historically significant date. I support a footnote explaining that the 'air date' and 'release date' differ for episode 2 (this is the current state of the article). The most recent edit was switching the column label between "air date" and "release date". Both are reasonable and I am neutral/don't_care. The column label should be whichever helps end the dispute over listing the earliest availability date. Alsee (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)