Talk:Heartstopper (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2022

Change "Meanwhile, one of Charlie's friends, Elle Argent, moves to all-girls school Higgs after coming out as a trans woman." to "trans girl".

While Elle's age isn't stated, she's a student in year 11, which would make her likely 15 or 16. Moreover, black teens tend to be perceived as older and less vulnerable than their white peers, so inaccuracy here plays into racism.

https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/research-confirms-that-black-girls-feel-the-sting-of-adultification-bias-identified-in-earlier-georgetown-law-study/ Detachedspork (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Detachedspork, thanks for noting that, I definitely didn't notice it! GeraldWL 13:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Detachedspork (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Content dispute about plot of Episode #7

Gerald Waldo Luis has twice reverted my changes to the plot summary for Episode #7. Here is Gerald's version:

Nick invites Charlie to the cinema with his friends but is unexpectedly greeted by Harry and Ben, who were supposedly uninvited, and bully Charlie. An argument culminates with Charlie being called a fag and Nick fighting Harry. At the car park, Ben approaches Charlie and claims Nick does not care for him to make him feel bad. Tao feels guilty for unintentionally worsening Charlie's situation by verbally attacking Harry, but as Charlie continues to ignore him, he gets into a fight with Harry and confronts Charlie for not telling him about his relationship with Nick.

Here is mine:

Nick invites Charlie to the cinema with his friends and tells him that Harry and Ben are not coming. However, they both arrive, and Harry bullies Charlie about his sexuality. Charlie and Nick leave, but after Charlie tells Nick he is used to it, Nick goes back to the group and tells Harry to stop picking on Charlie. Harry calls Charlie a fag, and Nick and Harry start physically fighting. At the car park where Charlie is waiting for his father to pick him up, Ben tells Charlie that Nick does not care for him, and that no one could. Tao feels guilty for unintentionally worsening Charlie's situation by verbally attacking Harry, but as Charlie continues to ignore him, he gets into a fight with Harry and confronts Charlie for not telling him about his relationship with Nick.

If I understand properly, Gerald thinks mine is too long and too detailed, even though it falls well below the maximum length of the guideline WP:TVPLOT. I reworded the plot because the first was poorly and unclearly written. First, Gerald's version implies that Harry and Ben bully Charlie. Ben certainly does his share of bullying Charlie throughout the series, but in this instance the principal bullier is Harry. Second, passive voice should be avoided whenever possible, e.g., "Charlie being called a fag" (passive) and "Harry calls Charlie a fag" (active). Finally, my version provides more context and the detail is not excessive. Input from other editors would be helpful as I don't feel comfortable reverting (I've reverted once).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do change the passive voice problem. However my point still stands. In a short encapsulation, readers don't need to be informed who is the primary bully, and taking tone into account it is up to viewers deciding who has more control. Other points:

• Charlie going to the car park because his father is waiting is not an important elememt either.
• The "unexpectedly" word saves up a lot of words and the message is still delivered
• "Charlie and Nick leave, but after Charlie tells Nick he is used to it" serves no purpose as it doesn't drive the summary. After the bullying, the core is at Harry and Nick.

I agree that the current isn't perfect, and I apologize for the edit war. But there's always a shorter alternative, and despite the minimum limit it should always be as short as the narrative allows, not as Wikipedia allows. GeraldWL 20:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of what you say has nothing to with anything Wikipedia-related but only your concept about what plot summaries should say. In my view, you have some very peculiar ideas about what the readers of the summary "need" to see. We'll wait to see if any other editors chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate the comment, and I'll let other editors (apart from Grey who seems to have undid my changes) to decide what's best, us debating is going to just result in a loop. I have to note, though, that I take my arguments using experience from making plot summaries, learning what is essential and what isn't. I will, though, concede for civility. GeraldWL 22:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Very instant update: Bbb23, I apologize for some of my comments. I re-reviewed the summary and trimmed a bit of wording (which I hope is minor), and feel like it is sufficient now. I still am in favor of changing "fag" to "faggot", but other than that it looks fine. I apologize for any inconvenience I may have caused. GeraldWL 22:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Fag/faggot

Sentence in question: "An argument culminates with Charlie being called a fag and Nick fighting Harry." Changed to "faggot" but reverted, edit summary: "actually "fag" is the word that was used in the episode."

Bbb23, I am aware that "fag" is the one said. However as I noted in the now-deleted invisible comment, "fag" is a shortened derivative of the official word "faggot". If "fag" is to be used it must be quoted, but practically doesn't need to as there's already an official word, and it's just extra 3 letters. It's like, if a film about autism uses the term "aspie", we certainly wouldn't use it but instead use the official "autism". "Fag" is informal and thus unencyclopedic. GeraldWL 19:05, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The idea is that Harry was using a pejorative term, and so should we. In my view, although both faggot and fag are pejorative, fag is slightly more nasty because it's shorter. I don't see why we need to quote it, but we can; however, if we do quote it, we should not use the wikilink because wikilinks shouldn't be used in quotations. BTW, I don't understand the autism analogy as autism is not pejorative but faggot is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Bbb23, I can understand your point-of-view with aligning with the film's tone, however that's not an encyclopedia's job. An encyclopedia merely encapsulates an information; if people want to feel an emotion they should watch the series instead. The reason we would need to quote the current is because fag is not an official word but a derivative, which is why using "fag" is additionally cumbersome: a wikilink makes more sense; after all, "faggot" is a jargon.

Also the idea of my autism analogy is, we should-- unless in specific conditions-- use official words rather than slangs, as they generally confuse more than they clarify. We shouldn't expect all readers to understand slangs, and shortening them just makes the job harder. GeraldWL 19:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi guys, i personally think that using fag is the better option as it is what was said in the show, and i’d say it’s safe to assume that people will understand it. However, if necessary, we could use ‘fag (faggot)’ with a wikilink in the brackets. Grey13z (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Grey13z, using "Fag (faggot)" would be repetitive. In Wikipedia it's not safe to assume that people will understand certain things: you never know who your audience is. There may be people who didn't understand what "fag" means in the show and come here to find it out. In an encyclopedia in general, it's important to note these things. What's said in a show must be altered if it improves encyclopedically. GeraldWL 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn’t assume, but for the people who don’t understand they could always just click on a wikilink if we linked fag to the page for faggot. Grey13z (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Which makes things more confusing, since the article's title is "faggot" and it would be easier if we just make the word here "faggot" as well, instead of needing to pipe-link, which wastes more bytes. As I said, it doesn't matter what Harry said-- if we can phrase it in a more encyclopedic manner, we should. GeraldWL 11:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Update. I'd just like to link a relevant policy here I forgot to cite: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Shortenings. That policy has many exceptions available, however "fag" isn't among them, and it is stated that unless it is within the table or has an official abbreviation, it should always be written in full form.

The trouble with "following what the source says", is that if we do that, we must quote it. However in such quotations it would imply that Harry isn't really being homophobic, or that it is an in-universe term, so a wikilink suffices more. Right now, if you think of any word that has a similar shortening, it would usually be more ideal to write it fully. GeraldWL 04:41, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2022

Filming mostly took place on location in Herne Bay, Kent, United Kingdom. Herne Bay High School was used for Truham Grammar School. Hollywood Bowl bowling alley in High Wycombe, United Kingdom was used for filming. The rugby scenes, as well as the Sports Day in the first season's finale, were filmed on the sports pitch at the now derelict E-Act Burnham Park Academy. The railway station from where Nick and Charlie depart to the seaside is North Weald railway station. Source: https://thetab.com/uk/2022/04/27/heartstopper-filming-location-nick-nelson-charlie-spring-netflix-248638

• A note that there's some discussion at Talk:Herne Bay High School regarding whether the school was actually used. An editor has stated that the reports of the school being used are incorrect, and that the school has contacted media for corrections. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Ferien (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:EASTEREGGy stuff in lead.

Currently, the lead reads "Heartstopper is a British coming of age and romance television series developed for Netflix, adapted from the webcomic and graphic novel by Alice Oseman." There is no clear indication of what article the link sends to (see MOS:EASTEREGG). It's a lot worse from what the article originally read yesterday, which was "based on the webcomic and graphic novel of the same name by Alice Oseman". Earlier, I changed it to "The series is an adaption of Heartstopper, a webcomic and graphic novel by Alice Oseman" on the basis argued by WP:TITULAR (an essay) and MOS:EASTEREGG / WP:EASTEREGG.

This change was reverted by User:Bbb23, reinstated by User:Alduin2000, then mostly removed again by User:Gerald Waldo Luis. In an attempt to mitigate any slow-motion edit warring, I'd like to open a discussion to establish consensus on how the lead should read. No strong opinion towards my version; feel free to prove it wrong. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:10, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added "of the same name". You cited an essay to removing it, however many film and series articles have used this wording so I don't think it is so severe to be removed. Repeating "Heartstopper" is also repetition, and there is a clear indication that the link leads to "Heartstopper" which the series' title said a few words ago. I can't see any relation to EASTEREGG; it would only qualify as EASTEREGG if this article is not about the series. The essay overall is not really helping: it only provides clunky alternatives (as it acknowledges) and its arguments don't make sense: the indication is clear, and cliche is not a concern when writing articles.

Alternatively it can be changed to "the novel" without "of the same name", however this is ambiguous. What novel? Is it of similar title to the series? Is it different? GeraldWL 03:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I don't mind the repetition of the word Heartstopper in PerfectSoundWhatever's version. Sometimes repetition of words provides the cleanest way of presenting information. I think that this is one of those cases; the use of "webcomic and graphic novel of the same name" just reads as an awkward construction made solely to avoid repetition, but the repetition doesn't even really read that badly here anyway. That's just my opinion on the matter though, I doubt there is any policy or MoS page that we could appeal to here. Alduin2000 (talk) 11:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: I meant the text was EASTEREGGy when the text lacked "of the same name". I agree if it includes that "of the same name, it's not really EASTEREGGy.

The reason I prefer stating the article name plainly is that 1) you don't need any "of the same name" clarification because the reader can make that inference 2) at a glance, a reader can clearly see what the link points to, and what the name of the graphic novel is because the article title is written as is. The whole point of that elegant variation essay that WP:TITULAR is a part of was that repetition shouldn't be avoided if doing so causes clarity problems, and I think this occurs in this situation. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I just realized— I probably should have originally linked to WP:OFTHESAMENAME, not WP:TITULAR. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Further points about "of the same name" were made in this thread. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:31, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Top 3 in the uk (on netflix)

IDK thought that would be good to add Camtheidiot (talk) 11:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Camtheidiot, unless a reliable source states it, I'm afraid it can't be put. GeraldWL 12:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

That's ok :) Camtheidiot (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Special screening

Apparently there was a special cinema screening of the first two episodes prior to the Netflix release. A detailed account can be seen here, however this is a user-generated Twitter account. There is one "news" story here and a verified account post here, however the information there are pretty basic. I think we cannot omit this as it is technically a world premiere. Just wanted people here to know. GeraldWL 02:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

First, I don't think we can include anything in the article that is not supported by a reliable source, and neither Twitter nor the "fan" website is. Second, I don't see this kind of screening as a "world premiere".--Bbb23 (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, and I did say I am not sure it can be used. I just posted thinking perhaps anyone has a way around this. It's a common practice among me (and several editors) to note such information, as I believe, regardless of whether or not is a "world premiere", it still holds some significance. GeraldWL 17:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Alice-oseman.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2022

Rotten Tomatoes Score should be out of 50 critic reviews, not 49 38.131.238.153 (talk) 06:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, as per the source already present in the article. MadGuy7023 (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Paywalled source

Chikiteces, you added this source as an addition to the "What's on Netflix" source regarding S2's filming. It seems to not state the "on location in France", so I assume it must be from the "Production Weekly" source. Do you have access to that source, and can you quote the relevant info so I can be sure it's true? GeraldWL 14:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)