Talk:The Man in the High Castle (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Template removal

Yes, it was a (partial) accident. The external links section was empty and it looked like the template for Amazon Instant Video was intended to be a link, didn't notice that it was responsible for the content after the empty section. ty. Lycurgus (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Relabeling the Map

Is it possible to change one word in the map image without creating an entirely new image? The current map labels the Nazi-controled region as "Great Nazi Reich," but the map in the opening credits of the show identify it as the "Greater Nazi Reich" with an -er. -- BlueResistance (talk) 23:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Amazon Sucks?

Episode 2 apparently became avalible a week ago, but it exists exactly no-where. Has Amazon dropped the ball, or is the wiki in error (I note there's no citation for episode 2)? 07:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)222.154.79.246 (talk) 07:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I have confirmation by email from Amazon that episode 2 has not actually been released yet. 222.154.79.246 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Episode 2 was screened at Comic Con and was streamed live on the internet accoring to News Week. Since the plot is known I see no reason not to write a plot summery. See my edit for reference and link. 85.250.112.249 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Redirects

I redirected The New World (The Man in the High Castle) and Sunrise (The Man in the High Castle) to The Man in the High Castle (TV series). Feel free to expand the pages if you have an interest in creating articles about specific episodes. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yakuza Leader

The boss of the yakuza or the one in charge of the yakuza.... the actor that plays him is missing from the recurring cast. I think he deserves credit as he have several speaking roles. --99.98.252.218 (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

What's his name? - Areaseven (talk) 08:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

This article made the Top 25 Report

This article was the 9th most popular on Wikipedia according to the Top 25 Report with 763,741 views for the week November 22 to 28, 2015. Nine episodes of the series were released November 20. Congratulations to the editors of this article for the exposure of their work.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  02:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

COI editing

There have been a couple recent edits labeling the production as British-American rather than American. This appears to stem from the involvement of Headline Pictures in some aspect of the production (it's billed well down the list of production companies), although the principle producer is the American company Amazon Studios. But my greater concern is the COI edit made today by an editor named ChrisHeadline2015, who clearly works for Headline Pictures (he also wrote its article, which is a PR puff piece). Headline's involvement appears to be much like that of BBC America or PBS/Masterpiece for productions they co-produce, none of which is identified as British-American. Couple that with the COI issue, and a revert was more than justified. --Drmargi (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmargi, appreciate your comment and won’t make the change again. From the start I’ve been very aware of avoiding bias, hence the transparency of my username. However, you or a third party may want to reconsider your edit because of the following reasons: 1. Both Scott Free Productions and Headline Pictures are British companies (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Free_Productions), 2. This show was originally developed by Headline Pictures, Scott Free, and Electric Shepherd (which represents the estate of Philip K. Dick) in partnership with the BBC in 2010 (http://www.theguardian.com/media/2010/oct/07/ridley-scott-sci-fi-philip-k-dick-bbc-drama), then moved to SyFy with Freemantle in 2013 (http://www.televisual.com/news-detail/Syfy-to-adapt-The-Man-in-The-High-Castle-with-Ridley-Scott_nid-2511.html), before eventually finding a home with Amazon 3. The writers room and the showrunner are based in London (http://www.ew.com/article/2015/07/09/what-you-need-know-about-man-high-castle-right-now), as are some of the writers 4. None of the producers or executive producers are from Amazon Studios, they are all either Headline, Scott Free, Electric Shepherd, or freelance (https://pro-labs.imdb.com/title/tt1740299/filmmakers).... So it seems to me referring to the show as solely or mostly American seems unreasonable, maybe even unintentionally Americancentric. But as you say, it’s possible I am biased. Will leave it to you/other editors. I hope this message comes across respectfully – it is certainly meant to.ChrisHeadline2015 (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone have any problem with this part please say.

Timelines

What is a key thread in the story is the histories shown in these newsreels that keep appearing. The importance of these histories is not clear but getting them is one of the main goals of the resistance movements, the man in the high castle, the Nazi security forces and Hitler. These newsreels show a variety of timelines, which differ from our own such as a nuclear bomb attack on San Francisco in the 1960s in episode 9 and Stalin alive in 1954 in episode 10. BernardZ (talk)

The latter post-apocalyptic San Francisco film segment appears to be a reference to "Operation Dandelion," a planned pre-emptive nuclear strike on the Japanese Empire by Nazi Germany in the novel, disclosed by Wegener to Tagomi and other representatives of Imperial Japan in the Trade Mission.

User: Calibanu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.146.141 (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

International broadcast?

Is this US-only? Amazon is only available in the US. Transparent got picked up by the Canadian service Shomi. What about this one? 68.146.52.234 (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Amazon is also available in a number of other countries. It is available to watch in Germany and Austria for prime customers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.72.134 (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain States

The introduction on the article has "and a neutral zone that acts as a buffer between the two areas, called the Rocky Mountain States." I don't recall the use of "Rocky Mountain States" in the series, but the "Neutral Zone" is used a lot. Should that be slightly rewritten? E.g. "and the Rocky Mountain States that act as a buffer between the two areas, called the Neutral Zone." Londonclanger (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Revised Pilot

The Pilot was revised prior to "airing" of Season One, in order to change the actor playing Julianna's step-father. The details can be found in:

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=71134

It seems clear that no one who watched the pilot needs to watch the revised pilot.

162.205.217.211 (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Japanese Pacific States flag

A flag for the Japanese Pacific States is needed to accompany the American Greater Nazi Reich flag. One has already been created and posted on a Wikia site here. I'm not familiar with copyright regulations on Wikipedia. Can the Wikia image be used here without explicit permission? -- BlueResistance (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a web series

It's a web series, not television series.70.79.37.53 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

For some reason, series on Amazon.com, Netflix, and Hulu are considered to be in the category of TV series and are included as such for the purpose of Emmy Awards, for example. IMDb also classes it as a TV series as do many of the major newspapers and magazines covering it. I'm not sure exactly why these are categorized as such, but there is extensive precedent for it. QuizzicalBee (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have never watched a program referred to as a "web series" on the "web". Internet yes, but never through a browser, which is the precipice of that delineation. It may be fair to call it a "new media" TV series, given it was not designed for traditional broadcast, however by that same definition, traditional broadcast series ought to be updated to accommodate the same level of undue specificity. I'm being a bit of a dick here. They're all programs of about the same length and are basically TV series. Let's not split hairs. Only the "commercial networks" would seek to do that to eliminate some of the better produced programs in order to step above something because they can't be bothered producing better stuff themselves. --118.209.181.183 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

controversy

Is the controversy section needed? It's SJW whine. --unsigned.

Yes, because of the attention it received, from relevant figureheads and back to Amazon studios too. And it's not SJW whine, it's PC whine. --118.209.181.183 (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

British?

Why is everything 'British' in this article? Philip K. Dick was certainly not British, and I'm fairly certain the show is also North American. Why does it say both are British? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dookukachoo (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't see anything about being British in the article? As of when you made this post, the article included the word "british" exactly twice, and both preceding the word "Columbia". It does say English because that's the language PKD wrote in and in which the program was produced, with the exception of occasional moments of German and Japanese. He may have been American, but his language was English, whether you like it or not. --118.209.181.183 (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Role of Juliana Frink

I was just looking at this, and wondering if there's a need for the section on "Role of Juliana Frink"? It just compares what she is in the TV series with what she is in the novel. But this is the only character this is one for. This seems out of place, and I think it should be removed, or changed into a section on the differences between TV and novel. QuizzicalBee (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Episodes synopsis are all wrong

Apart from the lack of some details, the episodes summaries have events that don't happen in the TV show. I haven't read the book and only watched up to episode 3, but I believe someone took a summary of the book and chopped it into the TV episodes to write the episodes guide.

For example, it states that in episode 3 Lemuel Washington tells Joe and Juliana that he is a member of the resistance and to go to the woods, when that never happens in the episode, in fact they discover he is a member of the resistance by themselves towards the end of the episode. Then it says "they are surrounded by resistance fighters, who force them to give them to give them the films and leave." when that never actually happened in the tv show, and while Joe do has the film, he hasn't yet told Juliana about it.

It doesn't make any sense, are these book events? because they certainly aren't in the TV show.

Faustodc (talk) 10:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Japanese Crown Princess a historical figure?

The current Japanese Empress was married to the Japanese Crown Prince in 1959, as the first crown princess from a common family as a result of Japan's loss in the second world war. It is very unlikely that she would have married him if Japan had won the war. She should not be a historical figure. Iceandsnow7 (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Neither should be, since neither is ever identified by name. Unlike the other historical figures, the Emperor and Empress (then Crown Prince and Princess) are still alive; the show will have taken care not to use their names, probably both out of respect, and because there could potentially be serious consequences for the production. --Drmargi (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

world map

In season 2 episode 4 at 13:25-13:45 they show a world map from 1962. Concerning the occupied countries it is very detailed, especially in north, mid and south america. It differs from all maps in commons:Category:The Man in the High Castle and furthermore it even differs from all maps i find with Google image search. Maybe someone could create a map based on this. If necessary i could create some screenshots of it. --BLueFiSH ✉ 00:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Trudy Walker

I couldn't find any information on who plays Trudy Walker in the Cast section. I don't identify her in the TV series, so can someone else do that? I've never seen the person who plays Walker in any other show or film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seelamviraj (talk • contribs) 20:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Conor Leslie. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Seelamviraj: You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Point of Divergence

In the novel the timelines diverged even before 1941, with Roosevelt's assassination. Is this true in the TV series continuity (at least, has it been mentioned)? 74.108.34.209 (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Schissel | Sound the Note! 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Just finished season 2. The first mention throughout the series about a PoD is the fact that Greater Germany threw (or rather, I'd think cruise-missiled directly from Europe) the Heisenberg device upon Washington, D. C. as the series's entire premise, but no date is given. For a long time from the start, I'd thought FDR had been roasted in the unexpected bomb flash, until it was ironically Heydrich (who, in our world, died during an assassination on his car in Prague) to point out in passing that FDR was assassinated in his car, but he gives no date either. The other guess I had from the start was that D. C. had been bombed in something like 1942 or '43, until one season 2 episode starts by giving December, 1945 as the exact bombing date.

Those were all the hints at a PoD throughout the first two seasons so far, and I see no reason whatsoever within the show that requires FDR's assassination to have occurred before 1941. In fact, it could've happened anytime between his 1933 election and his 1945 death, or maybe (it's not been stated anywhere within the show so far) he didn't even die of a stroke in 1945 in the world of TMITHC and his assassination happened even later than that. Stalin is mentioned to have been executed in 1949, two years after the war had ended in 1947, so from all the hints given within the show, it could even be (who knows?) that FDR was assassinated after the Washington bombing.

All that combined, the only definitive hints towards a PoD we have is the fact that Heydrich is still alive around 1960. In our world, he was assassinated in 1942, so the PoD must've occured in or before the summer of 1942. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Frank and Sarah's fate.

The fate of Frank and Sarah after the explosion is not shown. We don't see their bodies. So we don't know what happened to them. If it 'seemed' like they died to some viewers, that is the very definition of speculation. Hopefully this won't have to go to an RfC. Dlabtot (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Italy as an Axis power

The films show our reality. In our reality, Italy was one of the Axis powers that was defeated. Therefore, that is what is represented in the films. Shouldn't that be what the article says? User:Drmargi, your engagement in this discussion would be appreciated. Dlabtot (talk) 02:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

But we're not looking at our world in the show. We're looking at an alternate world. Early in S1, it's made clear that Italy was never a key player in the war. I'd have to go back and find where it came up, but they narrowed the Axis to just Japan and Germany. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmargi I must assume that the reason that you completely failed to address my point is that I didn't state it clearly enough. So let me try again. In the show, there are films, that show our reality. In our reality -- the one that, on the show, is depicted in the films -- Italy was one of the Axis powers. Therefore the article should state that. Again - we are not talking about the show timeline - we are talking about the newsreel timeline. Dlabtot (talk) 20:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It been a year since I've seen the whole series, but if I remember correctly, the films show several alternate realities with different outcomes. Unless one of those outcomes clearly mentions Italy, we shouldn't mention Italy as being included. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems sensible. Thanks for weighing in. Dlabtot (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Season Three Summaries

Will someone be adding summaries for each episode of Season Three.

It seems horrible inconsistent for Seasons One & Two, but not Three

Cuddy2977 (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Cuddy2977, WP:BEBOLD and go for it. -- Alex^TW 00:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Don’t look at me, Alex, I’m HOPELESS at them!

Cuddy2977 (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Should The Man in the High Castle (TV series) be described as science fiction?

The consensus is the "Genre" section of the infobox should not describe this as science fiction because most editors found alternate history to be narrower and more descriptive.

Cunard (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Genre" section of the infobox describe this as science fiction? see these edits: [1] [2] [3] Dlabtot (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• No – As per this recent edit, listing scifi, especially in the infobox, is redundant and wastes space. "Alternate/alternative history" is a subset of science fiction. All alternate histories are by definition science fiction, so listing the overarching genre is unnecessary. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Yes – since it is science fiction, and no one is making any argument to the contrary, it should be described as science fiction. Dlabtot (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• No – Alternate history is narrower and more descriptive. It's more than adequate. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - Per Joeyconnick. DonIago (talk) 05:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - Per my comments below. - BilCat (talk) 09:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Yes per sources, as explained below. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. Adding science fiction is unnecessary since alternate history, a more specific genre, is already included. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
• No There is barely any science in it. Alternate History is the genre. It is an old genre, older than science fiction. scope_creep (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Alternate history is a specific genre, where our history diverged into an 'alternate' history. This television show, which specifically and explicitly deals with a multitude of alternate histories, and, unlike the novel upon which it was based, has yet to reveal the underlying framework, seems to me to involve a much broader concept, and therefore rather than only being described as simply an alternate history, should be classified as science fiction. Also, since alternate history can be classified as a subset as science fiction, (although some might disagree), I can't see the harm in including 'science fiction' in the description. No actual rationale has been given for not describing the series as 'science fiction', other than: 'it is an alternate history'. I don't see this as a valid rationale, although I am open to hearing some justification for this viewpoint, if it were to be expressed. Dlabtot (talk) 08:31, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The argument to the contrary is not that it isn't science fiction, it's that saying it is an alternate history implicitly states it is science fiction. It's the same way we say, "The woman walked down the street" and not "The bipedal mammalian human woman walked down the street." Woman implies bipedal, mammal, and human. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand - in your opinion, it is science fiction, and it should not be described as science fiction. Thanks for clearing that up. Dlabtot (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarcasm won't help. Science fiction is broader and redundant. Alternate history is more specific, and appropriately describes the program. It's not necessary to add every genre we might see as fitting. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe that science fiction and alternate history are different genres. There could be overlappings at times, the same as there are overlappings between drama and alternate history genres. But I don't see any "science" at all going on this TV series.--Gciriani (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be clear agreement here that it is alternate history. Let's leave it at that. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternate history describes itself as a subgenre of literary fiction and/or historical fiction in addition to science fiction. As one example, The Bookseller is an alternate history that is actually a dream. However, the reception section has one source that calls the show science fiction, and one that (sort of) calls it dystopian fiction. None call it alternative history. Per WP:TVGENRE, genres should not be in the lead unless they're sourced. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third season reconsideration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I see now the genres are "Alternate history, Drama, Dystopia, Thriller". Both AH and dystopias are generally considered SF. MITHC is quite definitely SF, considering that the alternate worlds are interacting; a speculative physics element. SF might be redundant, but I think would be better to include it since most readers know what SF is, many fewer are familiar with AH. However, we also have Thriller and Drama. Aren't all thrillers dramas? 202.81.249.230 (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The above poll was before the third season came out. Now, they are dealing with travelers from parallel universes. That's science fiction. --B (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen any of S3 yet. It was definitely SF from season 1. It was clear from the first episode that the films came from other timelines. And in ep 110, Tagomi sees, or visits a world similar to our own, and of course goes there in ep 204. MITHC is both AH and SF; the genres overlap but it's not a given that AH is SF. AH without inter-universe or time travel or speculative science isn't really SF. (E.g., the original "counter-factuals" written by historians, and about half of Harry Turtledove's books.) The original PK Dick novel was more ambiguous, it had no films or objects, let alone people, from the other world(s). 202.81.249.28 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that they really spelled out that it was actual alternate worlds (as opposed to a dream/meditation sequence or something) in seasons 1-2 (at least not until the very end of season 2 when Juliana's sister re-appears). But in season 3, it's clearly, unambiguously, sci-fi and makes it very clear that they are parallel worlds and people travel between them. I have boldly added sci-fi to the appropriate spot. (I don't think there's any point in re-opening the RFC since it was based on old information - the show is obviously sci-fi now, regardless of whether it was before.) --B (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why, @Drmargi: you are disagreeing with this. Arguing that this isn't science fiction is akin to arguing that the sky is not blue. But if you would like, I have added the {{rfc}} template. --B (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• I'm glad the nonsensical assertion that this is not science fiction is being challenged. Science fiction, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"Alternate history has been seen as a subgenre of literary fiction, science fiction, or historical fiction; alternate history works may use tropes from any or all of these genres."

WP:KISS. Booyahhayoob (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

And? The reliable sources that exist all go out of their way to call it science fiction. Season three has the Nazis trying to build a trans-dimensional portal, which goes way beyond "oh yes, alternate history might be considered a sub-genre of science fiction". It's clearly science fiction. Every article about the thing calls it science fiction. There's nobody who claims it isn't science fiction. This is absurd. --B (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

By that reasoning, the genre 'Rock and roll' should be removed from the Buddy Holly article, since 'Rockabilly' is a sub-genre, also it should be removed from the Rolling Stones article, 'Blues rock' is a sub-genre, etc. These ludicrous arguments are why I hate genre discussions so much. Dlabtot (talk) 19:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

• No, per Booyahhayoob and previous discussions. Many alternate history works use physical devices to enable travel between worlds, so one showing up in Season Three doesn't magically mean we have to specify science fiction now. - BilCat (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Please name one that does not have "science fiction" in the infobox. Sliders, for example, has "science fiction, fantasy". --B (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The Guns of the South. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      • You said "Many alternate history works use physical devices to enable travel between worlds". Does this one? I only see mention of a time machine in the article. --B (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on sources. We see multiple sources that describe the series as science fiction. Where are the sources that do not? Dlabtot (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

• It is a strange world we live in when a show can win a science fiction award, yet not be science fiction. Perhaps Stephen Colbert was right when he said reality is a commodity? --B (talk) 11:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
• Yes - Science Fiction, also agree we should follow what the sources say. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Additional Sources (besides the 8 listed already)

Interviews It’s not about the science fiction. - Variety - (Interview with Frank Spotnitz - series creator) Q: How much of it is sci-fi or fantasy? - A: Slowly but increasingly, it has those elements. Things also get a little bit more sci-fi - Film Music Magazine - (Interview with Dominic Lewis - series musical composer) Q: The “sci-fi” nature of season three brings in a particularly ethereal sound. - A: I started season three with the “Trudy Suite,”...when you don’t know what world you’re in, who can travel or who’s going to travel. We go far deeper into the sci-fi space than we have in previous seasons - Entertainment Weekly Quote from Isa Dick Hackett, series executive producer, daughter of PDK. Sources a sci-fi conspiracy - The Guardian Amazon’s sci-fi thriller - The Telegraph the best sci-fi show - The Independent Changing it into film introduces an element of science fiction - The New York Times (1) The last two episodes went all in on “science fiction or magic.” - The New York Times (2) It’s a sci-fi story. - The New York Times (3) heavy sci-fi theme - Star Tribune Sci-fi takes over as the dominant mode - Another Rolling Stone Sci-Fi-Serie - Schweizer Illustrierte sci-fi tropes - Indie Wire The Man in the High Castle...is certainly sci-fi, despite nary a robot, alien or spacecraft in sight - Sequart Organization next sci-fi TV obsession Den Of Geek! Season three really amps up the science fiction aspect of the show - Film School Rejects More Sci-Fi Action Refocuses The Series - Screen Rant Amazon’s science fiction / counterfactual history - Paste (magazine) something with more sci-fi implications - Slashfilm sci-fi Nazi show - TV Guide junky sci-fi drama - Vox Sci-Fi Aesthetic - Collider Genre: Science Fiction & Fantasy - Rotten Tomatoes show's embrace of science fiction - IGN sci-fi drama - GameSpot traditional sci-fi fare - news.com.au

• Yes, list Science Fiction as a genre. A multitude of reliable sources state that this as a genre of the series, as well as the series having won an award in a Science Fiction category and been listed in a "Top Science Fiction Series" list, thus the genre is acceptable to be listed. (Summoned by bot) -- Alex^TW 04:34, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
• No. It's not only redundant, SF is now doubly redundant with the addition of dystopian as well as alternative-history labels. It's like renewing a call to add metal as a genre to a death metal band after someone also added black metal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How can anyone argue that the show is not loosely based on the novel.

That is if one has actually read the novel. User:Drmargi, User:Joeyconnick, have you read the novel? If so, what is your justification for saying 'loosely based' is inaccurate? First, it's not science fiction, now, it closely adheres to the novel. Editing this article is like living in a Twilight Zone episode.

Please present a coherent argument as to why 'loosely based' is wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A couple points:

a) The burden is on you to gain consensus for the use of loosely once the edit has been challenged. It's not up to us to present an argument, coherent or otherwise, particularly on demand.

b) Loosely is a subjective term, as I noted previously. What's your criterion for the adaptation being loosely based? The message comes across satisfactorily using based on.

c) Whether Joeyconnick and I have read the novel is irrelevant. And show me where anyone said/wrote anything that suggests, much less states, that the series closely adheres to the novel. For heaven's sake, exaggeration doesn't help your case. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

You're making a judgement call about how much the show is based on the novel, and simultaneously claiming that whether or not you read the novel is irrelevant. Ok. And also saying that closely adhering to is not in opposition to being loosely based on. Ok. It seems I be will waiting forever for that coherent argument. Also, I did not add the word loosely, I challenged its removal. So you got that wrong as well. Dlabtot (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously it's subjective, which is why familiarizing yourself with the subject matter (i.e: the novel), might be a good idea before forming an opinion. Dlabtot (talk) 07:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't matter if editors have read the book or not, because editors are not allowed to draw conclusions or interpretations on our own. We must reflect what sources say. The sources I have seen so far merely say that producers have "adapted the novel". I have yet to see a reliable source that quantifies how much or little the series follows the novel, as in "closely" or "loosely". Even if one is produced, it would probably have to be explicitly cited back to the source within the prose ("John Doe of ABC magazine describes the adaptation as a 'loose adaptation'" rather than "The series is a loose adaptation") because there is only one source out of many describing it that way. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Exactly my point, TAnthony. I'm making an editorial decision based on use of subjective language, not a judgment on the adherence of the series to the novel. Loosely remains a subject to interpretation, and as such is not encyclopedic. The point it made adequately without the use of "loosely." ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

It is correct that the point is made, but without the word loosely, the point is inaccurate and misleading. 208.85.164.43 (talk) 23:26, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely only loosely based on the novel, and we routinely use that term in such cases. If someone wants to be a pedantic pain about it, here ya go: WP:LMGTFY: ["Man in the High Castle" "loosely based" novel -wikipedia].  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:15, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Of course it's loosely based on the novel. That's as obvious as saying the sky is blue. Innumerable sources at your disposal AtlanticWashington PostDeadlineOthers from Google News. But I learn new things every day. A TV show can win an award for science fiction yet not be a science fiction TV show. A three-season TV show can be originally based on a novel, and exhaust the source material sometime in the first season, yet not be described as "loosely" based on that novel. What will I learn next? --B (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI, science fiction is not just spaceships and lasers, and the multiverse concept alone classifies this show as such.— TAnthony^Talk 14:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Plus, alternative history is also classified as science fiction, usually. Just look at genres such as steampunk and dieselpunk. There are even people who are considering the show an example of dieselpunk. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary spoilers

I understand spoilers are fairplay on Wikipedia. I agree, we can have spoilers in the season synopsis. But I don't think we should have spoilers in the 3 sentence character blurb. That's just ridiculous Sixfingeredamish (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree, as these are just intended to be character intros. It's kind of obvious that these items were added because they were spoilers, and I wouldn't be surprised if it occurred within 12 hours of the episode airing. Editors that do this (to various pop culture articles) don't bother describing the character's entire story arc briefly, they just add the titillating bits, like their deaths. I don't object to the inclusion of spoiler info per se, but the presentation of plot should be consistent over the entire cast list, which it currently is not.— TAnthony^Talk 15:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. The episodes are available for streaming, and their content is no longer a spoiler. Spoilers are advance knowledge of content of an episode before it is broadcast. We don't remove content because someone might not have seen an episode. Readers here can exercise some personal responsibility and not read the content until they've seen the episode. Moreover, there's no way to know if the content of an edit was added because it's a (non)-spoiler or not unless the editor says so, and we can't make editorial decisions on that basis. We don't hold back scores of yesterday's football game because someone might have DVR'd it and not know yet. We have to treat content of television programs in the same way we do any other current event: once it's out there, it's fair game and reader beware. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes yes, but in this particular case, 90% of the characters have a single sentence or sentence fragment as a description, except for everyone who has died or been scarred whatever (Frank, Joe, Thomas, Trudy), the most "spoilery"/sexy tidbits. And they don't attempt to cover a character's story arc in its entirety. If main character descriptions are going to include three seasons of info, which is fine, then all of the main characters need to have them, not just the ones who had grisly ends.— TAnthony^Talk 19:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The issue here aren't spoilers. It's that people keep unnecessarily adding extraneous info to places they don't need to be in the first place. You don't need the whole summary of a character's lifespan in the character intro section. That's why I said spoilers are totally great in the synopsis section, just not in the character intro/blurb. They are unnecessary there

Sixfingeredamish (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I just want to add to this that it is completely unnecessary to include spoilers in this way. Yes, it's not a fansite, but some people seem to be taking that principle to an extreme level just to prove a point. Articles are at the broadest level supposed to meet the needs of the people reading them and including spoilers in the cast section, for instance, is completely myopic. It makes the article objectively worse to do this and it's utterly indefensible at anything beyond the most pedantic of levels.

Easter Egg

If someone wants to mention it in the main page, there is an easter egg in the series where they are talking about the Pacific States and the hotel room is number 808. This is a reference to the song "Pacific State" by 808 State. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jQ_bOP0HfY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.254.34 (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)