Talk:Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures

Shorts then Season 1

BaldiBasicsFan, a section for you to discuss your bold edits, and to show supporting consensus and/or guidelines. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• It’s unusual to see that the shorts are above the episode list, most that I have encountered would be at the bottom of lists. An example would be another Disney Junior show, Spidey and His Amazing Friends (2021 TV series). Although the shorts came first, like with most shows, it would be at the bottom. Do shorts really count as official episodes? I don't see them being official episodes, their more like promotional material, like with the Spidey shorts. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  For things such as spin-off webisodes, that would be standard practice. But these shorts were deliberately produced and intended to preceed the regular series. I believe there was a discussion concerning listing the shorts first for Star Wars Rebels, but I'd have to go digging for it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  Okay. But for YJA, I want to hear other thoughts from users to see if they prefer the shorts to be above the episode list or not. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm also happy to hear further opinions. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Since the shorts are before the series proper, they should be listed first. Much like List of Star Wars Rebels episodes. If the shorts came after the first episode aired, then their location in the article could be discussed. We should be presenting to the reader chronological info as much as we can. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the title of the first short, when was there any information that the events in the shorts took place before the events of the actual show? Talking about the continuity of the series here. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

When Favre talks about chronological order, I believe he means chronological in their release. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably, but what about continuity-wise? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I meant real-world chronological info, and in this specific case, by release date. We also don't write from an WP:INUNIVERSE perspective so continuity-wise has little determining factor in the placement of the tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Spurious claims of first

Firstly the lead section makes a spurious claim of this show being a first for young audiences. Just because a Disney press release says something doesn't mean this encyclopedia needs to regurgitate it, Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be written like an {{advert}}. It is WP:UNDUE to highlight this WP:PUFFERY in the lead section. Even if it was true on a technically (by finding some excuse to ignore Ewoks (TV series) and the many other Star Wars animated shows targeted at young audiences) it is nonetheless unnecessary for this _encyclopedia_ to highlight such a trite claim. It is typical of marketing to split hairs so that they can claim a "first" and it is beneath this encyclopedia to repeat such a silly claim. Why does anyone believe this dodgy claim of first is so important as to need to be highlighted in the lead section of an encyclopedia article? (WP:LEAD should "summarize the most important points")

Secondly the article body verbosely not only repeats this press release verbiage (instead of taking a neutral point of view and getting on with the bare facts of the announcement) and calls it a first for "young audiences and their families" which if it really needs to be stated at all is more vague than the actual source which more clearly specified that it was targeted at a preschool audience. If encyclopedia article really must keep this spurious claim at all, it would be considerably better if it was less {{vague}} and more specific about it. -- 109.79.167.126 (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BRD only works if people that claim discussion is necessary discuss back. Alex21 asked me to discuss so I started. Despite his the edit summary of his revert this article fails to accurately reflect what the source actually says, to claim this show is a "first" it must be more specific and clearly state "preschool audience" instead of the vague "young audiences" wording. Again it would be better if this encyclopedia did not split hairs and put undue emphasis on a spurious claims of "first" simply because the marketing material did so and it would be better to leave this claim out of the lead section entirely. -- 109.77.200.184 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source to support your claim that it is not the first? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2024 (UTC)