Talk:A Discovery of Witches (TV series)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

Series 2 and 3

Starting a discussion for you. As stated, premiere dates are rarely set at the same time as renewals; it's rarer for it to be announced as such than for it to not be. The sources do not state any uncertainty about the lack of premiere date of the second series, and thus it is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to comment about it outside of the source. If the sources stated "the date has not been announced", then certainly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For whom did you start this discussion? Because if for me, then thank you, but feel free to delete it. Debresser (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you, given my previous experience with you warring over very minor issues. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you decided to add insults, let me just remind you that it takes two to edit war... so anything nice you said to my address you can tell yourself. As far as this discussion is concerned, I have already said above, that I have nothing to discuss here with you or at all. You don't understand hints very well, do you? Debresser (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you decided not to war over this issue, given that it takes one to start it. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AMC Premier

Alex I have reinstituted my edit with a Ref to the main AMC Premier page, which PROMINENTLY displays an advert for the series. Gil gosseyn (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season or series

Should we use "season" or "series"? I ask since I see a small edit war about this. Personally I am more accustomed to "season", as in "the series consists of several seasons". Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Naming conventions that seems to be the correct style. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Episode_listing and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(television)#Series_television say that both are possible. Personally, I find it confusing to use "series" in the title for the whole ("TV series") and then again in the article for the part, and would prefer to use "season" for the part. The producing company seems to use "season","A Discovery of Witches seasons two and three" and per the instruction at MOS:TVEPISODE: "if that is the identifier for the show", we should probably go by that. Your input will be appreciated. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a British show, it is implicit that each "year" of a show is a "series". Reviewing sources, the "series"/"season" factor is definitely a "across the pond" thing, with US based sources flipping to "season". It should stick to "series". --Masem (t) 16:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Normally we would follow how it is described in the sources, particularly those from the production company. In this case this seems a bit mixed up, with Sky itself referring to a season on its website yet loading material to YouTube using series, for example here[1]. Radio Times is also using a mix of terminology, here[2] yet here[3]. Looking back at the history of the article, series looks to have been used from very early on - for example in the infobox of the early post-stub versions - and it is sensible to stick with this until Sky itself settles on one or the other. MapReader (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 December 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Retracted, in favor of a possible future broader discussion on the guideline level. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC) Debresser (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Discovery of Witches (TV series) → A Discovery of Witches (TV serial) – This proposal is a result of the confusion inherent in the British designation of seasons of a TV series, which is also "series". I discussed this at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Season_or_series, and based on my understanding of that discussion, in it was mentioned that the British designation of a series would be "serial", I made a bold move.[4] Since that move was reverted[5] after two weeks for no other reason that the lack of prior discussion, I hereby open such discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose First off, Requested Moves, much like RFCs, should be presented in a neutral format, which you have failed to do by including inconsistences in your opening statement. Secondly, as I have already stated at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Season_or_series (and not been responded to twice), per WP:NCTV, for the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", when disambiguation is required, use: (miniseries) or (serial) according to common usage in reliable sources. I see nothing in the discussion conforming with this; can you confirm this?

Thirdly, I'm curious as to whether there is there also a widespread misunderstanding in the other 860+ British television articles that use the "(TV series)" disambiguator. If there is, can you provide examples? If there is not, what separates this article from those? Let's start with this and the above question first. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial: "Unlike other request processes on Wikipedia, such as Requests for comment, nominations need not be neutral". Debresser (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My comment concerns the comment that the move was reverted after two weeks for no other reason that the lack of prior discussion. That is a lie and thus provides to a faulty RM. You have now failed to answer the question regarding the NCTV quote thrice. Do you intend to answer the questions at all? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Unnecessary to disambiguate to TV serial, per WP:NCTV. In addition, most British television series with multiple seasons are still called TV series, not TV serial. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe should have started at WP:NCTV then. I would argue that that page is US-oriented, and should not override regional usage on an article about a UK or European series. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I was just looking for other British TV series with seasons to see if any used the (TV serial) disambiguator, and found most don't. Series like Sherlock with 4 seasons (or series) and Peaky Blinders with 5 seasons (or series) still use the (TV series) disambiguator, so there seems to be no reason to do it differently here. —El Millo (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is something that should be changed, perhaps. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, do you intend to reply to every opposing comment? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only if I have something to say. But your bad faith assumption, not your first on our interactions, is duly noted. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then answer the above questions. You wanted guidelines, I have provided them. Or realize that your move has no basis. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered question number 1 above. Question number 2 is about miniseries, which this is not. Regarding question number 3, this question basically repeat the suggestion that perhaps this should be solved not on an article basis, but on the guideline level. Which is probably true, and I shall retract my proposal here. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debresser, then this discussion should be much broader, and it should require much more evidence for its necessity and/or benefits than what this current proposal needs. —El Millo (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps indeed. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the others above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I have answered question number 1 above. Question number 2 is about miniseries, which this is not. Regarding question number 3, this question basically repeat the suggestion that perhaps this should be solved not on an article basis, but on the guideline level. Which is probably true, and I shall retract my proposal here. Quesiton 1 was not answered, and it is likely further RMs/RFCs will be based on similar lies. Question 2 regards the usage of (miniseries) or (serial) according to common usage in reliable sources, and again, no reliable sources were ever provided despite this quote. In fact, it's the only usage of serial in NCTV, showing its lack of support. If a discussion is opened to restructure NCTV, then I will be quoting this poorly-formed RFC and consensus-lacking MOS:TV discussion to provide context of poor editorial decisions and skills. Happy New Year! -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was closed, meaning that you really shouldn't comment any more. Do you really need to have the last word? Interesting that you accused me of WP:BLUDGEON... Apparently an instance of Tu quoque. Debresser (talk) 14:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the requested move. Nothing says I cannot contine the discussion, nor do you get to decide to have the last word and speed-close the discussion after your reply to prevent responses. Do you intend to contribute to the above questions of content or not? -- /Alex/₂₁ 17:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 binge release

Sky announced that all episode of season 2 will be out on Jan 8th (in a binge model) so the season 2 episodes section needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babar Suhail (talk • contribs)

@Babar Suhail: Firstly, we need an independent source that explicitly states the binge-release of the series, as the series' website is likely to update. Secondly, the episode table can still list the weekly dates so that we can match dates to weekly viewers, we can simply note the whole release at the top of the episode table, or the Release section, similar to Anne with an E § Season 2 (2018). -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've added a source, stating that it was released in its entirety but still airing weekly so we can list viewer figures. I've had the series overview keep just the 8 Jan date, but the episode table keep all weekly dates with a note in the header. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

What the heck is your issue?????? The guideline WP:LEAD says "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." The premise of the show is one of its most important contents, so it belongs in the lead. "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The topic includes what the show is about. The important points include who the main characters are and what they do. Why the hell shouldn't a lead section summarize each of its sections, which includes a brief overview of the premise, of the important cast AND characters, its release, and – as I also added and you inappropriately reverted – its reception??? Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which television guideline states that the premise must be included? The sentence from LEAD does not state anything about the premise. Your edits have already been disputed elsewhere. -- Alex_21_TALK 22:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEAD applies to all articles. It does state things about the premise: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." The premise is one of the important points of the article (which is why it's the first section), and without it the lead can't stand on its own. Why do you think the premise does not belong in the lead? Reywas92^Talk 02:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion, not a guideline that clearly mentions the word "premise", and it's clearly been disputed elsewhere. Please gain a consensus before reinstating it. Until then, happy editing! -- Alex_21_TALK 07:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you deny that the premise of a show is an important aspect of the show? If someone told you only your lead, without any indication of what the show is about, would that really be adequate? What the heck???? All of your User:Alex_21#Top_Edited_Pages have the premise in the lead, are they wrong? This is literally the dumbest argument I've ever gotten into, that you're saying the lead shouldn't summarize the article. Reywas92^Talk 14:06, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Procedural close. ––FormalDude talk 02:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Should the lead section include a summary of major aspects of the article, specifically including premise but also reception, such as this or this version? Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Obviously, in accordance with WP:LEAD and MOS:TVLEAD. I'd say that what the show is about is the single most important point of the article – it's what I'd tell a friend when recommending the show! Reywas92^Talk 14:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Summoned by bot. As someone who never heard of this show, a brief plot summary is useful for me to get a quick familiarity with the subject, before deciding if I want to read further. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad RfC – Really? There's a brief dispute between two editors with no requests for outside comments and we're jumping straight to RfC? As explained at WP:RFCBEFORE, a better course of action would have been requesting feedback from a specific WikiProject (i.e., WP:TV) before going this far. As to my response, Tim already hit the key points. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a bad RFC, apologies to other editors who have had to deal with this. An even better course of action would have been to request a WP:3O, but given that the initial editor has been blocked for edit-warring over the matter, I no longer believe this to be a pressing issue. -- Alex_21_TALK 19:37, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back, no need to gloat. So both the third opinion and fourth opinion say a brief plot summary is fitting for the introduction – guess if you don't think it needs to be an RFC, I can close and reinstate. Apologies that others need to be involved in the obvious that the lead should summarize the article. Reywas92^Talk 17:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this RfC should be closed as unnecessary. I think most people support a brief plot summary; if you want to continue this discussion in a more visible location without resorting to RfC, WT:MOSTV is probably a better option. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92 I would recommend, in the future, reading RFCBEFORE as linked above, and knowing when and where to hold an RFC properly. This was not an apporitate response, and you should consider how interact with the community in the future. All the best. -- Alex_21_TALK 21:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the two editors involved in the content dispute now agree on adding that content to the lede or that the RfC is not the proper solution, the RfC is considered to be closed. There is no need for a "formal" closure. Ktrimi991 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Audio

I'm missing info about composer and music production 185.80.180.20 (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]