Talk:Devil May Cry (TV series): Difference between revisions

I removed the paragraph on Joshua Fox’ Screen Rant review, because the way it was included felt like it was meant to skew the reception towards the negative. If more reviews are referenced, maybe it could be re-added as one more opinion, but as the only review from a named critic, it’s an odd and dare I say dubious choice. Especially since it hits on all of the talking points that the usual suspects on X and youtube are whining about. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the rules that prohibit citing individual reviews as examples of criticism? If not, I’ll be forced to revert this piece. I will say right away that our personal opinion about a source cannot be considered a sufficient reason for removing the source. Especially if there are signs of a conflict of interest. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have rules against false balance, which that excerpt introduced. I have a feeling it was put there in the first place because a certain section of the DmC fandom is unhappy with this TV show. That’s good to bring up, but it should ideally be done with secondary sources. Myconix (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s no secret that the series is disliked by many fans of the original games. But in this case, the review was simply cited as an example of a negative review from critics. The rules you cited speak about generally accepted and marginal points of view (for example, scientific and conspiracy theories about the nature of some phenomenon), I doubt that we can operate with something like that in describing reviews of an animated series. Not to mention that the mentioned problem were raised and discussed in one way or another even in positive reviews or by the authors themselves. For example, a very big departure from the plot and personalities of the characters of the original games. Many reviews like CBR even generally have a characteristic tone of apologies for what the series is criticized for. For my part, given the anonymous user’s history of edits of other articles and their rhetoric, I would say the opposite, that they are trying to combat criticism of such projects by portraying it as “whining” by “bad people from culture wars.” Which, given the lack of any response from them in this discussion, worries me a little. Solaire the knight (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There have been numerous disruptive edits, mostly from IP users, who clearly disagree with the positive critical reception that the series has received but aren’t editing with a WP:NPOV. While I agree that including criticism is valid, without a similar detailing of the positive reception it absolutely falls under WP:FALSEBALANCE. The reception section can be expanded upon so that the J. Fox source can be readded to contrast the positive reception, but I wouldn’t readd it until we reach a consensus. I will add a critical response shortly. Cheezknight (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these edits and they had nothing to do with this paragraph. Let alone being destructive. It was just a bunch of anonymous people trying to point out that fan reviews were much more divided than mainstream critics, not knowing that Wikipedia doesn’t count user reviews. And I still don’t see any argument as to how an example of negative ratings of the show violates the said rule except that it would contrast with the current very positive section. Which in turn also violates the balance of the presentation, since as far as I have noticed, a number of users in articles about modern films and TV shows actively try to downplay or even completely remove negative reviews from the articles. Including that same anonymous person who previously noted in the discussion of the new version of Snow White. And that in itself, of course, can also very easily fall under WP:NPOV. Can you cite a place in the rules that, in your opinion, directly prohibits mentioning opinions that contradict the majority in principle? Does this mean that if a show had such dominant negative critical reception, we should remove the positive ones as marginal? We do realize that reviews of fiction media are not the same as scientific and marginal viewpoints in scientific disciplines, right? Solaire the knight (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have agreed with you on this. The IP user shouldn’t have removed the J. Fox source but I understand why they did. They were pointing out that by only including a single detailed criticism it can read as though the reception was more negative than what the overall critical consensus currently states. I have updated the critical consensus with a range of opinions to hopefully fix this. Feel free to readd the J. Fox source now that the section is more complete. Cheezknight (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the correct approach to take, given the lack of credible sources on fandom opinions. Myconix (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggested waiting at least a couple of days to hear OP’s reaction to the current development of the discussion. They showed up, but it seems they were more interested in arguing about the show itself than discussing the work on it. So what should I do now? Take all this as community consensus and return the text to the rewritten section? Solaire the knight (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at this point it’s probably fine. Myconix (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I’ll link to this discussion in a comment and change the wording a bit to fit the section. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“It’s no secret that the series is disliked by many fans of the original games.”

According to who? Mark Kern, Stuttering Craig and Jeremy from the Quartering? Youtubers and social media talking heads with a consistent track record of lying for internet clout are not reliable sources.

“…given the anonymous user’s history of edits of other articles and their rhetoric, I would say the opposite, that they are trying to combat criticism of such projects by portraying it as ‘whining’ by ‘bad people from culture wars’.”

Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and use of reliable secondary sources exists, regardless of what you think of my track record. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can’t accept your words about neutrality and Wikipedia rules without questioning them when you literally start arguing with me about the series in the same comment, turning the thread into a discussion of the series, rather than a discussion of the work on it (if you didn’t notice, my words were in regards to the fandom’s attitude towards the show, not the desire to write an article based on social media). And I’ve literally been a long-time fan of the franchise myself and have been a part of its fandom since the 00s, you don’t need to tell me how people have responded to the series. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I removed it, it was the only individually cited review. If aggregators like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have mixed to positive reviews, but the only one cited in great detail is a negative one, then that is a massive red flag and a sign of POV-pushing, which is in fact against site policy. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, in its current form, the review section has become even more one-sidedly positive, although this is not so much the “fault” of Wikipedia as the critical assessment of the show. I am not sure if I understood you correctly and whether you are suggesting that I now return the paragraph to the article as a citation of another review, but at the moment I suggest discussing this on the project’s talk page to hear the opinions of other users and not provoke a new edit war. Since although I refrained from reversing the edit of the anonymous user, they have not yet commented on it in any way and I am not sure that my other edits will not be perceived as a continuation of the dispute and reverted by them.

• I opened a topic on the issue in the television project to avoid endless meta-disputes. I invite all users, including an anonymous person, to express their arguments there. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely unnecessary. And your concerns in that discussion are moot. As I said in my opening post, the Joshua Fox review can be re added after the section gets expanded with more reviews, to better reflect the overall reception. Preferably in a paragraph that’s less bloated than the original. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  On the contrary, as the discussion showed, it was the right decision. If only because it sped up the discussion and brought the problem to the attention of many people instead of me waiting an unknown amount of time for your answer. So, let’s not waste time discussing the series instead of discussing the work on the article. Do you have any new arguments against it? Or can I not be afraid that you will delete the paragraph again when I return it to the updated section? Solaire the knight (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for participating to everyone who has spoken in this thread and I apologize for being overly emotional. I did not expect the issue to be resolved so calmly, so I was too “excited” to say the least. If there are no more comments, I do not mind if the discussion is closed to simplify archiving. Solaire the knight (talk) 20:19, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we write that Nero is Dante’s nephew if it is one of the major spoilers of the latest game of the game series? Sure, the events of this series take place in an alternate timeline, but wouldn’t it be too abrupt to give such distant details? Solaire the knight (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recently an edit I made was reverted with the reason given being that “the series received a positive critical reception so the reception section must reflect that instead of including an abundance of negative reviews.” I believe that it is important to include these reviews as the reception is much more divided than simply being overwhelmingly positive. Reception from critics immediately upon release of the series was largely positive, which has been explored thoroughly in the paragraphs already under Reception. There is enough content from reputable sources that are negative towards the show that should not be dismissed, as well as presenting reception past the initial release. If other users believe the example should be rewritten that is another matter that I am happy to discuss. IAmNotGreg (talk) 7:42, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page. The series currently sits at 96% on RT and a 75 on MC, so it maintains a positive critical reception and therefore the reception section on the article should present as overall positive. A sizable paragraph (thanks for adding to it by the way) that criticizes the series already exists, and making it too large would skew the overall reception towards mixed or negative. See WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE.

A compromise could be to reduce the word count of the GamesRadar and In Between Drafts bits to a sentence or two each. This would make the paragraph more concise, so the reception section still presents as broadly positive. Cheezknight (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I am fairly verbose when writing these, and was attempting to match the style of the rest of the article. My aim was to primarily get the perspective of the fanbase that existed prior to the Netflix series, as those that interact with the series will have likely been brought in with the show. In a nutshell, similar to how DmC: Devil May Cry had a positive critical reception but a highly negative one by the fanbase. If you only went by the reviews of that game, an article would portray it as a rousing success so you need that perspective. An alternative I’ve considered is possibly expanding the the reception with more than just an expansion of the negative reception. For example there are articles that argue that the show boosted sales of the games, which reliability of aside could be something to include, or perhaps a more middle ground review. IAmNotGreg (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it that you did match the style well. I do understand the frustrations of a series, film or game having a polarizing reception between critics and audiences. I do agree with you to an extent, but its important to keep to a WP:NPOV. While mentioning the disapproval of the fanbase is noteworthy if backed up by reliable secondary sources, it shouldn’t be a large focus.

The ideas you presented are good, anything to improve the article like that is very welcome. The production or release sections could use expanding as well, but I know that isn’t the focus here. Cheezknight (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Before I make any edits, I want to run the next action through here. Should I restore the previous edit while adding the additional information from the linked CBR article and/or the review from Netto’s Game Room, or should I try to merge the In Between Drafts content with the GamesRadar section while also adding the additional information? Which would do best to maintain balance with the article? IAmNotGreg (talk) 07:18, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. Restore the edit, cut down the word count a bit and merge as you suggested. If I’ve been too blunt or unreasonable about this I apologize. Cheezknight (talk) 08:44, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s no need to apologise. We’re all trying to keep the quality of the article consistent, and it’s important to push back at times. I’ll work on the reversion and new additions when I can. IAmNotGreg (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First phase of the edit is complete with new content discussing the show and effect on Devil May Cry 5. Need more time to incorporate previous content back in to match everything.