| Revision as of 06:13, 11 January 2020 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,942 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Watchmen (TV series)/Archive 1) (bot← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:54, 27 September 2024 edit undoNinjaRobotPirate (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators148,115 editsm NinjaRobotPirate moved page Talk:Watchmen (miniseries) to Talk:Watchmen (TV series) over redirect: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM) |
| (33 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B| |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics |class=B |importance=low |dc=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Comics |importance=low |dc=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television |class=B |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Television |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |USTV=y |class=B |importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=low|USTV=y|USTV-importance=Low }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Oklahoma|importance=low|tulsa-task-force=yes|tulsa-importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
| algo = old(180d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Watchmen (TV series)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Watchmen (TV series)/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 50K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 6 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{refideas|1=}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020 == |
|
== Setting == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Watchmen (TV series)|answered=yes}} |
|
The Watchmen TV Series takes place in ] in the Watchmen alternate universe's of 2019; one with no ] or ]<ref>https://www.instagram.com/p/B0Us2rEJi1P/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet</ref> and ] is the longest serving ] starting in ]<ref>https://www.instagram.com/p/B0X8LDZJn86/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet</ref>, 34 years after the ] ends. After ] that calls themselves “The Seventh Calvary” wearing home made Rorschach masks do simultaneous attacks on the houses of polices, all the members of the Police department start wearing masks. |
|
|
] (]) 01:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
] (]) 12:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
I want to help provide relevant and important information for this page. |
|
--] (]) 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> <span style="background: -webkit-radial-gradient(red, blue); -webkit-background-clip: text; -webkit-text-fill-color: transparent;">]<sup>(] • ])</sup></span> 13:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Continuity == |
|
Add to Article ?--] (]) 01:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This should have at least some basic info on continuity, beyond the bare statement that it takes place in the same fictional universe as the original comics. E.g., how does it relate to/depart from the film continuity? To other film/TV works by the same comics publisher? And so on. Keep in mind that many people only know of ''Watchmen'' from the film, and are not comics readers. (For my part, I'm not a superhero comics reader, and don't even watch most filmic adaptations of them, so I won't be of any help on this particular matter.) <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
In this comment and the main article, there is reference to "The Seventh Calvary". Calvary (or Golgotha) is stated as the place where Jesus was crucified. Should this not be amended to "The Seventh Cavalry" - the correct spelling for mounted troops - (pending resolution of the Cavalry/Kavalry question)? ] (]) 14:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The problem is, the tie to the *events* of the comic is very much non-existent, outside of the fate of characters. The only major tie-in is the intro sequence of one episode, and the first para of the premise attempts to set the stage enough so that a full refresher of the comic series is not needed here. |
|
:Nearly all the sources talking of the episode today use "Cavalry", with some using the K variation. Until there's more clarity on the C vs K, I've switched it to "Cavalry". --] (]) 14:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:There are probably dozens of small continuity nods of the type that TV Tropes would document (both major and minor details) but I don't think to a point requiring a whole section. Reading the premise and the cast/character descriptions in whole, you know who are the returning characters and their original roles. --] (]) 13:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC) |
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
::Hmph. I remain skeptical. Against my better judgement, I re-watched the film (which I had seen when it was new, but remembered very little of), read a synopsis of the comics, and also binge-watched the first season of the TV series. The comics and TV series appear to be entirely compatible, while the film and the TV series only have minor disjoints: the filmmakers' decision to complicate the engineered cataclysm that brings about peace between the superpowers, and Dr. Manhattan's statement that he's thinking of leaving for another galaxy. Of these, the only real continuity break is that in the comics and TV show, it's Veidt's giant squid-thing that kills millions in NYC, versus the film changing this to a series of new-energy devices jointly developed by Manhattan and Veidt killing millions in multiple world cities. Even the "where is Manhattan going?" issue isn't an actual continuity break. In the film, it was claimed that peace would hold only as long as the world thought Dr. Manhattan "was watching", and in all three versions of the story he can being in more than one place at a time, so he easily could have followed through with a plan to check out another galaxy while also leaving a visible copy behind doing weird stuff on Mars and more secretively doing stuff on Europa and (in human form) on Earth. Even the weird Klan/Cyclops–Rorschach connection isn't a continuity problem; in both film and comics it's clear that Rorschach's journal is going to get published, so it's entirely plausible that weirdo far-right conspiracy theorists would latch on to it and his image for their own purposes, especially since both comics and film make it clear that the original team were very much "of their time", products of privilege, and quite right-of-center (e.g. the Comedian being said to have been a borderline fascist, and even Manhattan having no problem, until {{lang|la|post hoc}} conscience got to him, of being used as a weapon of mass destruction against communists in North Vietnam).<p>Anyway, it's probably worth at least a few sentences that the major continuity break between the film and TV/comics story lines is simply the squid vs. exploding reactors point, with a secondary and weak discontinuity being Manhattan's very Earth-visible activities on Mars in the TV show. Well, that and Dreiberg being (so far) just being ignored; the viewer of the TV series gets no impression of his having had any impact of any kind after the events of the comics/film. (That could, of course, change in later seasons.) Regardless, I think people tend to use our articles on fiction franchises to get continuity info pretty often (I know I do), so I found it weird that this article was totally devoid of any.<br /><span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 05:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)</p> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Separate episode articles == |
|
== Principal Photography == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section begins with the dates May 30 2018 to June 2 2018 for filming the pilot. That seems short. ] (]) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
I am going to wait to judge coverage of episodes individually until after the next one (3rd) but I think there's a good likelihood each is individually notable, between episode reviews and production stuff (eg there's the THR article today on part of Lord's play + more.) --] (]) 03:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I am tentatively agreeing with ]. It seems each episode might turn out to be individually notable. Here's one review of the second episode , and one for its premiere episode . I think this series may have significance because it is centered on a central issue of our time, at least in the U.S. And this is accomplished by moving the story line ahead to 2019, along with flashbacks. ] (]) 06:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here is some background material . It was released by the series creators or HBO or something like that. I lost the article I was reading that linked to it. The background material is on HBO's URL, so there is a connection of some kind. I will try to find that article again. As an aside, there seems to be a lot of RS available on the show itself. ] (]) 06:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Good catch - I found a corrected date with citation -- added to Filming section. ] (]) 15:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
Ep5 definitely had enough sourcing for it between production and reviews so I've started its article ]. The others probably can to at this point. Remember to keep plots on these pages to under 700 words. --] (]) 16:39, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== About starring cast order == |
|
== Remove broken reception graph == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Reception section graph has been broken for years with no indication that it will be fixed. Even before it was technically broken the graph itself is fundamentally flawed (it shows no difference between an episode with 10 reviews, versus an episode with 100 reviews) and does not meet up to the standard of an encyclopedia. It is long overdue to remove this broken graph. Please remove it already. -- ] (]) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
According to ] which states {{tq|The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list.}} ] should be at the bottom of the starring cast list because she didn't appeared and wasn’t credited until "She Was Killed by Space Junk" (episode 3). — ]] 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:That applies to all uses of the template so should be discussed at ]. ] (]) 20:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:That would be the correct interpretation of the MOSTV guideline for cast order. ] ] 14:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Update''': ] is now at the bottom of the starring cast list as she has appeared and is credited as part of the main cast on "If You Don't Like My Story, Write Your Own" (episode 4) and while ] is now second to last. — ]] 09:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Audience/User Ratings == |
|
|
This page says user/audience ratings can not be included yet the shows Dark and Chernobyl include user ratings on their pages as well as The Shawshank Redemption. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:Can's speak to Dark or Chernobyl, but for Shawshank, it has been noted by reliable sources that the movie has dominated the user-voted #1 at IMDb for a long time. Thus, it is valid to provide that information given others have commented about it. In the case of Watchmen, the best we have on user reviewes are reliable sources talking about review bombing, so that can be included, but that's as far as that needs to be said. --] (]) 20:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please read up ] and ]. — ]] 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
It seems obvious that the Rotten Tomatoes "Audience Score" for this show (now at 42 percent, as of November 12, 2019) cannot be included on the page for political reasons. I would not have guessed that Misplaced Pages would fall prey to ], "protecting" readers from the unpopular Audience Score of 42 percent. - ] (]) 19:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{re|Slowmusketeer}} It's not about ]. There are guidelines and policies on Misplaced Pages. Audience/User Ratings are not reliable because they are user-generated content. They are not professional reviewers. — ]] 19:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Audience/Critic ratings mean very little and do not affect the Nielsen ratings or a shows renewal/cancelation odds. But per ] user ratings cannot be added to the page. I really wish people would take the hint rather than getting into pointless discussions like on the Batwoman page. No one is censoring anything and no one really cares about what someones politics are on here. Guidelines are guidelines and must be followed. ] (]) 19:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{re|YoungForever}} I disagree. Everyone knows what the Audience Score is, and everyone knows that the "professional reviewers" are just people from the audience who apply to Rotten Tomatoes for that designation (of professional reviewer); the vast majority of those reviewers do not work as critics for newspapers. You or I could just as easily get that designation. Only including the Critic Consensus is misleading Misplaced Pages readers. - ] (]) 20:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We don't make the rules, we simply follow. If you want to see audience ratings included on the page I suggest you go about attempting to change the guidelines. That would result in a lengthy discussion I'm sure. ] (]) 20:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::{{re|Esuka}} I have not read the Batwoman page. Audience and Critic ratings are estimates of popular opinion, and many people look at these to decide whether or not to watch a show or take these "scores" into account to estimate a show's quality. You are being dismissive and it is not convincing to me. - ] (]) 20:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No they really aren't. For example Mr. Robot is one of the most acclaimed shows on television but has been low rated for pretty much its entire run. There are 1000s of examples of very low rated but universally acclaimed shows on television. Take HBO, they have an entire library of beloved but low rated shows. Acclaim means nothing for ratings. ] (]) 20:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The problem with any site that allows user-submitted reviews or even just scores is that they can be gamed either way in part due to anonymity whereas the whole of professional reviewers are not going to game their own reviews in the same manner. Most RSes ignore user-generated scores and reviews because they give hardly anything of use for proper reception of a work. --] (]) 20:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Time to move Don Johnson to "Guest Star"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
I get that he was listed as a star and featured prominently in the trailer, but, may it please the court, it's becoming increasingly clear that that was an intentional hoax to make his sudden death near the end of the first episode more unexpected. - ] (]) 04:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:If he was listed at any point in the starring cast, he stays there. We've seen this show plays with flashbacks, so he certainly can reappear in later episodes. --] (]) 04:11, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:And especially w/ ep 6's preview... --] (]) 16:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vigilantes? == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are a few characters, such as Sister Night, Looking Glass, and Red Scare who are described in this particle as vigilantes, but they're really not. They're police officers, not private citizens, and like the other officers, they disguise their identity. They differ in that they have, for lack of better terms, a schtick. |
|
|
|
|
|
We know they're not considered vigilantes within the fictional world because the vigilante hunters of the FBI don't go after them. Instead, the FBI works with them the way they might with any local police. For this reason, I suggest we call them costumed police officers, if we need to distinguish them from the regular cops who are masked with yellow balaclavas or scarves but otherwise wear police uniforms. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
I went ahead and made a couple of changes after confirming that the cited sources did not refer to the costumed police officers as vigilantes. I left the term alone wherever it applied, of course.<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Doyle or Abar == |
|
|
|
|
|
Angela's three kids are listed here as "Doyle", which is the surname of their deceased biological father. If they're just being fostered, then this is probably correct. However, HBO's site says "Topher Abar" is their adopted son: https://www.hbo.com/watchmen/cast-and-crew/topher-abar. I'm not sure if Emma and Rosie are adopted, though. IMDB lists "Emma Abar" but no last name for "Rosie": https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7049682/fullcredits. Where would we be able to find an authoritative source here? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:01, 26 November 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:IMDb is not a reliable source! I would say go by the official HBO website. — ]] 01:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::HBO is more reliable, but it's also incomplete. It confirms Topher is an Abar but is silent about the other two kids. But here's more proof that all three are Abars: https://www.instagram.com/adelynnspoon/?hl=en, https://www.instagram.com/itslilyrosesmith/?hl=en |
|
|
::That's enough to persuade me. ] (]) |
|
|
:::The Instagrams of the two child actresses are not reliable sources because their accounts are not verified with a check mark. — ]] 03:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
The show credits don't mention their last name, but HBO's site confirms that their brother Topher's last name is Abar, not Doyle, and multiple sources refer to all three as adopted. There is no reason to think that he changed his last name but they didn't, and no source even suggests it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Moreover, we have a variety of sources specifically confirming that one or both of the girls are named Abar. This includes their own Instagram accounts, which post exclusive pictures and have tens of thousands of followers, and sites like this: |
|
|
* https://tv.apple.com/us/show/watchmen/umc.cmc.4i6rlj629sgiel4bw9ta7oyxt |
|
|
* https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2424741/hbos-watchmen-tv-show-an-updated-cast-list |
|
|
* https://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/tv/article236661683.html |
|
|
* https://amp.kansascity.com/news/local/article156903184.html |
|
|
* https://comicbook.com/dc/2018/08/09/watchmen-tv-series-hbo-cast-lily-rose-smith-dylan-schombing/ |
|
|
* https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/news/2019/10/23/in-depth--young-charlotte-native-guest-stars-in-hbo-s--watchmen- |
|
|
|
|
|
This looks like an open and shut case to me. ] (]) 01:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would just list both. It's not clear what they go by now, since both names are used reliably, and we know why they have that name issue (their biological parents died at White Night, the Abars adopted them). --] (]) 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::I just noticed that YoungForever tried to remove Topher's last name, citing ], but then someone undid that. It turns out that the policy does not say what YF thinks it says. Specifically, "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." I'd say that HBO is a reliable source for the names of characters in HBO shows, as is Apple's TV site and those newspapers. |
|
|
::As for the fact that their surname used to be Doyle, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning it in parentheses, like "Topher (Doyle) Abar", but I'm not particularly inclined to do that, just because no source does and it's not really that important. ] (]) 01:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::FYI, I said we go by how they are credited which is {{tq| All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source.}} on ]. In addition, when I removed that there wasn't a reliable source to your claims. — ]] 23:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== On Cal's line in the cast list == |
|
|
|
|
|
At least with Ep7's airing, we should not identify Cal as equivalent to Dr. Manhatten (though I've seen the rumors that it looks like the same actor that may be playing him in Ep 8, at which point we can add that). As best we can tell up to Ep7 without synthesis, Abdul-Mateen played the character of Cal, who we know had something in his head based on Dr. Manhattan, but it's not clear Cal was aware he was Dr. Manhattan. At this point, we know Cal was just a human shell with this device in his head. We may learn more next week. --] (]) 04:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, now with this from Lindelof I am pretty sure we can assert this now. Will add myself. --] (]) 15:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Spoilers in Cast? == |
|
|
|
|
|
There are unnecessary spoilers in the Cast and Characters section. For example it states that Calvin Abar is a form of Dr. Manhattan and that Trieu's daughter is actually her clone. I am 4 episodes into the series and this has not yet been established. These are unnecessary spoilers and rather frustrating. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> |
|
|
:See ] - we do not use spoiler warnings nor hide material that has been aired in wide broadcast yet. --] (]) 23:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: Misplaced Pages contains ] and they are inevitable. Removing spoilers is considered to be disruptive editing. — ]] 23:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The issue is not that spoilers exist, but that they are in the Cast and Characters section. A user wishing to read about casting information will be exposed to spoilers. Spoilers should exist in Plot Sections or in Episode Summaries, not in the Cast and Characters section. I have had two major plot details spoiled simply because I wanted to see who plays a character. Information about major plot points should not exist in a section regarding casting as is the case on all other Misplaced Pages pages regarding TV Series/Films that I have encountered (read: thousands).[REDACTED] pages <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 18:31, 6 December 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:I agree, I think it's good practice not to ] readers about major plot points in the 'Cast' section.--] (]) 18:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::The problem with have with this show is that we have a few actors playing parts that need to be documented in the cast list but which I would be aware of would be called a spoiler (namely, Cal's identity and who Will really is). There is some element of not revealing too much, but at the end of the day, the encyclopedic functionality of providing information is more important than hiding info away because it may be a spoiler (the whole point of ]. --] (]) 19:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I feel like there should be a better way to represent this, maybe a subsection alongside 'Main', 'Recurring', 'Guest starring', something like 'Character revelations'.--] (]) 01:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think that sounds fair.] (]) 19:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm surprised anyone wants to keep spoilers here. The contested wording only ruins the show for those who haven't seen it yet. Why is this controversial? ] (]) 17:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)illdave |
|
|
:See ]. Once something has aired we do not take steps to hide spoilers, particularly for highly relevant casting details, like Yahya playing both Cal and Dr M. --] (]) 22:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Alan Moore's Rorschach quote == |
|
|
|
|
|
the original source for ] is a video interview he gave to LeJorne Pindling of Street Law Productions back in 2008, so it might be better to verify and cite that rather than a 2019 article quoting it. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 11:56, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:As long as the source requoting it is considered an RS (where as the original source doesn't appear to be) , we're find using the re-quote. --] (]) 14:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Ratings table == |
|
|
|
|
|
The table is looking a little empty and theres a reason for that. Some episodes couldn't be sourced with Live+7 and there's only one further one that could be. Would people be okay with a combined Live+7 and Live+3 to fill in the blanks? There are Live+3 numbers for every episode. Or should I just source the remaining Live+7 episode that can be and leave the rest of the fields as n/a? ] (]) 00:33, 11 January 2020 (UTC) |
|
This should have at least some basic info on continuity, beyond the bare statement that it takes place in the same fictional universe as the original comics. E.g., how does it relate to/depart from the film continuity? To other film/TV works by the same comics publisher? And so on. Keep in mind that many people only know of Watchmen from the film, and are not comics readers. (For my part, I'm not a superhero comics reader, and don't even watch most filmic adaptations of them, so I won't be of any help on this particular matter.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The Reception section graph has been broken for years with no indication that it will be fixed. Even before it was technically broken the graph itself is fundamentally flawed (it shows no difference between an episode with 10 reviews, versus an episode with 100 reviews) and does not meet up to the standard of an encyclopedia. It is long overdue to remove this broken graph. Please remove it already. -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dylsss 13:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)