Talk:Taken (2017 TV series)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Cuchullain in topic Requested move 4 February 2019
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Move discussion edit
I have begun a move discussion at Wikipedia talk:TV about moving this article back to Taken (TV series). I believe that is sufficient disambiguation from Taken (miniseries), and that the "2017"/year disambiguation in this article's title is unnecessary, as there are no other articles on "long-form" television series with the title Taken on Wikipedia. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Ratings table edit
The second season starts in just over a week of this posting. The first season ended almost eight months ago, with no expansion to its ratings table. As its current state offers nothing outside of that listed in the episode table, I will remove the ratings table before the second season begins, unless expansion on the first happens. — Wyliepedia 23:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 4 February 2019 edit
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Move. There's unanimous consensus for the first move, as well as consensus that the second should be moved to year disambiguation. There's still disagreement about whether the second should be (TV series) or (TV program); I'm moving to the latter as by my understanding it seems to have better support in the WP:NCTV guideline. Another RM to settle the question can be started if desired. Cúchullain t/c 15:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
– Two issues here:
- The 2017 television series article needs to be moved to further disambiguation as per WP:INCDAB. Unfortunately, this series was a joint U.S.-French production, so "by country" disambiguation can't easily be used in this case. So "by year" disambiguation under WP:NCTV is preferable. Taken (TV series) can then be redirected back to Taken#Arts, entertainment, and media as per WP:INCDAB.
- The 2016 Canadian TV program article is currently using incorrect disambiguation under WP:NCTV – there is no "by genre" disambiguation under NCTV. In addition, this is not a "TV series" (with continuing story elements) but a "TV program" (i.e. each episode is "standalone") under WP:NCTV. "By year" disambiguation is advisable in this case as well, to disambiguate from the 2017 TV series, though I would not object to moving this one to Taken (Canadian TV program) either.
Note also that Taken (miniseries), for the 2002 TV miniseries, also exists. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support 1st, oppose 2nd and move instead to Taken (2016 TV series) - 2017 show is currently WP:INCDAB for sure. The 2016 show is a documentary anthology series, and should use (TV series) as we do often for other documentary anthology series. Heck, its official site is https://www.takentheseries.com and the text splays "series" all over the place. Sources also predominantly call it a "true crime documentary series". WP:NCTV says (TV series) are those that "express a unifying narrative theme" and an anthology of crime documentaries is such a narrative theme. -- Netoholic @ 04:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- "TV series", "TV program" and "TV show" are all used in the entertainment press, and by TV studios, to describe all manner of TV programming. But that's not how we disambiguate TV shows under WP:NCTV – for use of "TV program" as a disambiguator, we use it when:
"Each episode of an on-going show usually is self-contained with little connection to other episodes, other than title, format, hosts, and other on-air personalities."
The episode list at the latter article makes clear that each episode is a self-contained topic with no "crossover" of topics from one episode to the next: hence it's a "TV program" under NCTV. This is similar to the situation with Talk:Beyond (U.S. TV series)#Requested move 28 December 2018, Talk:The Fifth Estate (TV program)#Requested move 27 December 2018 and some other recent move discussions that we had back in late 2018. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)- Anthology documentary shows fall under (TV series). Don't confuse the issue by linking a news program as its a completely different genres. Beyond (Canadian TV program) was a complete mistake. Please see how the vast majority of shows in Category:Canadian documentary television series and Category:American documentary television series (indeed the category names themselves) support this. If we need to clarify NCTV, then let's do it, but don't try to fight this battle on every single documentary series RM. -- Netoholic @ 05:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- "TV series", "TV program" and "TV show" are all used in the entertainment press, and by TV studios, to describe all manner of TV programming. But that's not how we disambiguate TV shows under WP:NCTV – for use of "TV program" as a disambiguator, we use it when:
- Support the first as uncontroversial. The second does indeed fit the NCTV guideline for program. So support second as well. To Netholoic argument about the category names - the whole TV category tree is incorrectly named. Every TV program is placed under Category:American television series, so by that naming logic, every show is a TV series. --Gonnym (talk) 17:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: - NCTV naming is fundamentally built on the idea that if is show is not series/serial, not a miniseries, not a TV film, not a game show, and not a talk show, then it falls into the (TV program)/(TV programme) disambiguation as a catch-all. Clearly, the sources calling this show a series. Its format meets the WP:NCTV#Series television definition as
express a unifying narrative theme
(that theme being an anthology of true crime documentary) andtypically aired only part of the year, and are produced as a set or cycle of episodes usually called a "season"
. Perhaps it is a mistake for NCTV to express any definition of (TV program) other than describing it as a fallback, but it is the intent of the guideline, the common usage in the "real world", and the clear preference of editors to describe this style of show as (TV series). -- Netoholic @ 22:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)- Except that has not been what has been expressed in recent RM's. NCTV isn't "Netoholic's preferred definitions" – it's what collectively is decided among editors at WT:NCTV and in RM's. Considering how often article-first authors incorrectly name or disambiguate their articles, that should have no bearing on how articles are systematically named. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- NCTV isn't my definitions, but I should point out that the section you keep quoting was written and added by me somewhat recently, so I think I know the intent, but it seems to have the unintended effect of causing more confusion than it was meant to solve. We have a large number of article of this same type which have been using (TV series) for quite some time, rightly so. Instead of you seeking to address this on a wide scale, you have put it in a couple of low-visibility/low-participation RMs. If a change is your goal, it will take you decades at this pace. (TV program) is, and has always been, a fallback/catch-all for shows which do not fit (TV series), (game show), and other easily-understood and commonly-used disambiguators. -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's how the process works – an editor adds or changes language; maybe later on they regret that language, but other editors have come to rely on the language or agree with its formulation. That you now regret the language you used doesn't change the fact that a number of us seem to agree with the current version of it. The issue here is that you basically want "TV series" to effectively be the "catch-all", but many of us do not agree with that: it's not about "seasons" – "TV series" are about continuing elements from episode to episode, which is nearly always a "continuing story" and "continuing characters". Many of us are satisfied with this definition. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, I want our usage of (TV series) to match as closely as possible what the rest of the world describes as a TV series. In the case of this article and the genre of anthology documentary shows - they are called "series". They have episodes and seasons and are sold to networks as series. Sources call them a series. Other repositories of data on these shows call them series. They are series, and if you are hung up on wording within NCTV which leads you to think otherwise, then we can fix it if you allow it. And from that point on you can be satisfied that we have a naming convention which matches reality. -- Netoholic @ 01:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Added: If we're going to have a (TV series) disambiguator, don't you think the goal should be to use it to match what the "real world" also describes as a "series"? Taken (documentary TV series), for example, on their official website (https://takentheseries.com), network website[1], press releases[2], and secondary coverage[3][4] is absolutely referred to as a series. Their Twitter handle is @takentheseries and their official Facebook is /takentheseries/ . Everything about this show screams at us "series" - its one of the clearest examples I've ever seen. So, if some editors are somehow arriving at the conclusion that we should not call it a (TV series), then either the guideline is unclear, they are confused, or they are trying to fully eliminate (TV series) as a valid option. -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- No, I want our usage of (TV series) to match as closely as possible what the rest of the world describes as a TV series. In the case of this article and the genre of anthology documentary shows - they are called "series". They have episodes and seasons and are sold to networks as series. Sources call them a series. Other repositories of data on these shows call them series. They are series, and if you are hung up on wording within NCTV which leads you to think otherwise, then we can fix it if you allow it. And from that point on you can be satisfied that we have a naming convention which matches reality. -- Netoholic @ 01:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- That's how the process works – an editor adds or changes language; maybe later on they regret that language, but other editors have come to rely on the language or agree with its formulation. That you now regret the language you used doesn't change the fact that a number of us seem to agree with the current version of it. The issue here is that you basically want "TV series" to effectively be the "catch-all", but many of us do not agree with that: it's not about "seasons" – "TV series" are about continuing elements from episode to episode, which is nearly always a "continuing story" and "continuing characters". Many of us are satisfied with this definition. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- NCTV isn't my definitions, but I should point out that the section you keep quoting was written and added by me somewhat recently, so I think I know the intent, but it seems to have the unintended effect of causing more confusion than it was meant to solve. We have a large number of article of this same type which have been using (TV series) for quite some time, rightly so. Instead of you seeking to address this on a wide scale, you have put it in a couple of low-visibility/low-participation RMs. If a change is your goal, it will take you decades at this pace. (TV program) is, and has always been, a fallback/catch-all for shows which do not fit (TV series), (game show), and other easily-understood and commonly-used disambiguators. -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Except that has not been what has been expressed in recent RM's. NCTV isn't "Netoholic's preferred definitions" – it's what collectively is decided among editors at WT:NCTV and in RM's. Considering how often article-first authors incorrectly name or disambiguate their articles, that should have no bearing on how articles are systematically named. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Gonnym: - NCTV naming is fundamentally built on the idea that if is show is not series/serial, not a miniseries, not a TV film, not a game show, and not a talk show, then it falls into the (TV program)/(TV programme) disambiguation as a catch-all. Clearly, the sources calling this show a series. Its format meets the WP:NCTV#Series television definition as
- Support 1st, oppose 2nd and move instead to Taken (2016 TV series) per Netoholic. The 2016 series is still a series. We should not be using "documentary" per WP:NCTV unless this cannot be resolved by year and/or country. --woodensuperman 08:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support Both, though I don't know enough about where the 2nd should go, having just looked at the guideline. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:09, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support first, oppose second and support Netoholic's alternative move. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support first, oppose second and move to Taken (2016 TV series). I can't believe this series was considered more notable than the miniseries (also a TV series) in the first place. Personally, I'd move that to Taken (2002 TV series). This attempted distinction between a TV series and a miniseries is so much nonsense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: With regard to the use of miniseries, I couldn't agree more - see prior attempt at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 13#Can we deprecate the disambiguator "(miniseries)"? --woodensuperman 09:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Woodensuperman: I'd certainly support such a deprecation. To me, the term "miniseries" means something with no more than two or three episodes. Anything longer is just a bog standard TV series. I don't know if that's because I'm in the UK, but I'd never heard the Wikipedia usage of the term until a couple of years ago. And I've still never seen it off Wikipedia. The allegations on that discussion that it's archaic usage may hold water in the US, but I don't think they do in the UK. We don't distinguish between a series of a defined length and an ongoing series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also in the UK, and got rather frustrated at the discussions at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 miniseries). --woodensuperman 10:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Didn't spot that, unfortunately. Miniseries my a**e! What on earth is wrong with the uncontroversial and commonly-used TV series I have no idea. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also in the UK, and got rather frustrated at the discussions at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 miniseries). --woodensuperman 10:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- And, yet, there's currently a discussion in WT:NCTV that would deprecate "miniseries" (and presumably "serial" as well), and would effectively deprecate use of "TV program" as well in most cases, that everyone is ignoring, despite my attempts to interest other readers... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Woodensuperman: I'd certainly support such a deprecation. To me, the term "miniseries" means something with no more than two or three episodes. Anything longer is just a bog standard TV series. I don't know if that's because I'm in the UK, but I'd never heard the Wikipedia usage of the term until a couple of years ago. And I've still never seen it off Wikipedia. The allegations on that discussion that it's archaic usage may hold water in the US, but I don't think they do in the UK. We don't distinguish between a series of a defined length and an ongoing series. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Necrothesp: With regard to the use of miniseries, I couldn't agree more - see prior attempt at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 13#Can we deprecate the disambiguator "(miniseries)"? --woodensuperman 09:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Support both moves. The counterproposal for an alternative target for the second move seems to be demonstrably counter to the guideline at WP:NCTV, so I don't see a good reason not to go with the original nomination. — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.