Talk:Reboot (fiction)

message: I'd like to contest the example of The Force Awakens as a soft reboot as, while the films are left in the continuity, everything else that previously was in continuity was ignored and removed and yes the other materiel was in fact in continuity contrary to what some may say Tnu1138 (talk) 15:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force Awakens is a bad example of a soft reboot. 

message: I have removed most of the lists of reboots in various media. At first I wanted to remove some obvious nonsense, for instance the Need for Speed franchise which never had any continuity to discard, and the various series of remakes (Aren't a remake and a reboot supposed to be different? Even if so, I think we should limit the examples to things which are reboots and only reboots to decrease the vagueness that pervades the article). Then I realized that nearly all of this was guaranteed to be either wholly WP:OR, or sourcable at best to an industry tidbit issued decades post festum. The one and only reference in the whole section was James Bond's Casino Royale, which begs the question of what makes it a reboot, and not On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Live and Let Die, etc. I'm sure there is a case here for both sides of the argument, and that just proves that without sources any list such as this is arbitrary, and therefore I have removed it. I have left in comic books as that's where the term "reboot" came from, and thus instances of comic book reboots are more likely to have concrete sources. Daß Wölf 16:09, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as there have been no arguments in favor of keeping the list, I'm reinstating my edit. Daß Wölf 22:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. A 'see also' link to :Category:Reboot (fiction) seems like a more suitable approach for now. If there were reliable sources for all/most entries, this could be spun-off to its own list article, but not before that. Grayfell (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Hello. Did you see this discussion above? It explains some of the problems. Grayfell (talk) 01:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Please remember to be civil. What about all the problems listed above? Grayfell (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

text: try engaging in discussion with  and  EvergreenFir (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your effort, Gameman18, but please don't make such edits without proposing them on talk page first. As you can see, it has led to an edit war earlier. Also, keep in mind that all such tables need to be thoroughly sourced to reliable sources and contain no original research. As the reinstated tables consist pretty much exclusively of original research and material sourceable at best to Buzzfeed and the like, I'm really anxious to see your proposed solution. Daß Wölf 22:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

text: That's a reasonable standard, but it still needs reliable sources. Otherwise it really sounds like WP:OR. For Wikipedia lists like this it's common to be relaxed about sources by having the sources be at the target article. This is just a convenience, though, it's not really good practice. The messy history and bloat of this list means that's not going to work anymore. If a reliable source doesn't directly support that a work is a reboot, it doesn't belong. If it says it's a reboot at the work's article, it should be fairly simple to use that source for the list. I would suggest a user sandbox or similar before adding this. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the lists of examples 

message: I've fully protected the page for a week, (requiring admin access to edit the article) since both IPs and established editors were edit warring on this. Contact me if a resolution on this comes sooner, and I can unprotect before then. Sergecross73 msg me 19:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your effort, Gameman18, but please don't make such edits without proposing them on talk page first. As you can see, it has led to an edit war earlier. Also, keep in mind that all such tables need to be thoroughly sourced to reliable sources and contain no original research. As the reinstated tables consist pretty much exclusively of original research and material sourceable at best to Buzzfeed and the like, I'm really anxious to see your proposed solution. Daß Wölf 22:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

text: That's a reasonable standard, but it still needs reliable sources. Otherwise it really sounds like WP:OR. For Wikipedia lists like this it's common to be relaxed about sources by having the sources be at the target article. This is just a convenience, though, it's not really good practice. The messy history and bloat of this list means that's not going to work anymore. If a reliable source doesn't directly support that a work is a reboot, it doesn't belong. If it says it's a reboot at the work's article, it should be fairly simple to use that source for the list. I would suggest a user sandbox or similar before adding this. Grayfell (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Page protection

message: Some writers have completely ignored continuity, in a special way that essentially reboots for every story arc or even for every story.
A notable example is the Carl Barks universe for which Scrooge McDuck, Huey, Dewey and Louie, Gyro Gearloose and his helper, April, May and June, Gladstone Gander, and probably others I've forgotten were created by him, as was the fictional city of Duckburg.
This technique is similar to floating timeline and reset button technique, but isn't really covered by either of those articles. But surely others have noticed its use? If so, it should have a name somewhere in reliable secondary sources.
The Donald Duck Universe is particularly interesting because Barks' successor Don Rosa abandoned this technique, and instead introduced massive retcons to give his fictional universe a timeline. Again, this should surely be documented in RSS. Andrewa (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Barks etc 

message: Yeah, I agree that the term "sequel" will probably be misunderstood unless the reader clicks on the wikilink (although lots of reboots are also thought of as sequels, e.g. Casino Royale). I'm not sure what to put there ("installment of an established series"? -- it sounds a bit complicated).
However, I don't think your new definition is accurate. Reboots don't discard all continuity (e.g. character names and backstories are typically preserved). Similarly the backstories are not recreated completely, e.g. Batman's parents are certainly long dead in every series, although IIRC the circumstances of their death change. This is not mentioned in your sources either. Daß Wölf 19:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First, let me say I appreciate you taking the time to protect and improve this article. I could not go along with the word sequel in the lead, however. As you can see, the opening sentence of that article says "continues the story of". Best just to leave the word sequel out of the lead here entirely. It seems to me very few true reboots would be considered sequels. Possible exceptions might be described in a small section farther down in the article. As for the use of all, I see your point. The reason it could stand is even if the same character name is used, in a reboot it's a new character starting from scratch. The deaths of Batman's parents are given a new version/backstory in most reboots, as seen three times since 1989. However I am not adverse to removing all if readers might take it in a way not intended, as long as the point is maintained that all characters are being seen as if for the first time in a reboot even if they have a previously established name and presence in earlier versions. Gothicfilm (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence 

message: I don't believe we should have a list of only comic book reboots on this article. It is WP:UNDUE without films, TV series and novels, etc. Particularly as only two of the 12 entries on the list has a source. We have  and it seems to me best to just leave it to those categories. Otherwise there will always be people who want to restore the other lists and edit war over them. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List inclusion/exclusion 

message: Rather than have an edit war, let's discuss the relative pros and cons of removing this section. Maybe we can take bits of it and place them under a different section? What do you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShawMuldoon (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Similarity to other terms" section.