Talk:Vikings (TV series)/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Links from the cast list section

Latest comment: 7 years ago38 comments10 people in discussion

The links from the cast listed on this main series page go variously to the separate 'list of characters' page or directly to the page of the historical or legendary figure that inspired the character in the series. I don't like this - it's fair enough to record that some of the drama characters are based on or inspired by people from history (which we do on the list of characters page) but to link directly from the TV series character to the historical character implies that the series is historically acccurate - whereas we know it is not, either in the events portrayed or the time series; considerable dramatic license and large doses of imagination and creativity have been injected into this series.

I suggest that the cast list should in every case link to the separate Wiki page, where we indicate any inspiration that has come from recorded history (such as it is) or legend. IanB2 (talk) 07:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sort of agree with you. The character list should only link to the separate article of the historical figure that inspired the character, whether the series is historically accurate or not (e.g. Ragnar Lodbrok's link remains), and any link that links to List of Vikings characters (e.g. List of Vikings characters#Floki) should be removed, as this article is already covered by the section in the "Main article" link. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have amended the links in the cast list accordingly. It will be interesting to see if, in the next series (as I suspect) Floki turns out to have been inspired by Hrafna-Flóki Vilgerðarson! IanB2 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree fully with the edits you implemented, as they were nothing like what I assumed you meant with your original post, and my reply to it. To reiterate, the character list should link to the historical figure that inspired the character, so "Ragnar Lothbrok" should link to Ragnar Lodbrok, and any link that links to List of Vikings characters (e.g. List of Vikings characters#Floki) should be removed. Instead, now every link now links to List of Vikings characters. This is poor practice, especially since the "list of characters" page is already linked at the top of the cast section. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The list of characters on the character list page contains links to the historical (or legendary) figure where these clearly provided inspiration for the character. However the series is clearly a drama with a large dose of creativity - the characters in the drama are not actually those from history (for example the real Rollo was not Ragnar's brother, assuming even that Ragnar existed, but lived some decades later contemporaneously with some of Ragnar's purported sons) and it would be misleading to click on a dramatic character's name and arrive directly on the page of a historical person without any explanation that they are not - nor were ever intended to be - one and the same. IanB2 (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That's contradicting, not linking a character to its historical inspiration on this article, but linking the exact same characters on the list-of-characters article, simply because it's not historically accurate - why does apply only to this article, and not to the list-of-characters article? The characters and historical figures may not be identically the same, as every drama series based on historical figures will always have its modifications, but the characters of the series are derived from those figures, no matter how accurately they are adapted, and ought to be linked to the articles as such. If necessary, instead of linking directly to the article, the links can be directed to the reference to the television series in the historical figure's article - e.g., link "Ragnar Lothbrok" to Ragnar Lodbrok#In popular culture. Despite all of this, all of this still does not explain the link spam to List of Vikings characters for every character, though. Perhaps this is a discussion that should have views from multiple editors; perhaps a post at WikiProject Television? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I leave it to your greater experience to decide whether the links to the character page for every individual make any sense or not. My point was simply that a largely fictional character shouldn't link straight through to a historical figure who happens to have the same name, without some explanation. The character list page is OK and already links through to these historical figures, because it clearly says "based on..." and mentions where the figure is actually semi-historical or even merely legendary. IanB2 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

For example, consider Rollo. In history Rollo wasn't related to Ragnar, even in legend, was probably Danish rather than Norwegian, and didn't participate in the events of the first series such as the raids on Lindisfarne and later Wessex, or meet the various Anglo-Saxons portrayed in the first two series, as he was either not born or a young child at the time. He was at the Paris siege, and granted lands in Normandy in return for going away - but in reality this deal was along the lines of the deal with Ecbert portrayed in the first series, whereas Vikings has Rollo switch sides, kill all his followers, and fight with the French against his countrymen. In history the siege happened decades after the early raids on England, Rollo's followers were not killed but settled in Normandy to become Normans, and continued to raid England; Normandy was also used as a winter base by other Vikings. There is no evidence that Rollo lived in the Paris court, helped defend Paris against later sieges, or had anything to do with raids into the Mediterranean (although his descendants did), and his reported marriage to Gisela is questionable; he was already married to another French noble's daughter and Gisela may have been just a child at the time. Essentially out of over forty episodes in which Rollo features, his character's actions in perhaps two or three have some basis in history. Even to say "based on the historical Rollo" is stretching things, "inspired by..." might be better? IanB2 (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I also disagree with linking to the "in fiction" subsection. Readers expect to find out more about the historical or legendary character, and can be presumed to be aware that their portrayal in the series diverges from the historical sources. Sandstein 10:03, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

IanB2, in your revert you refer to "consensus" here, but I can see none; you are the only person who advocates this change, and everybody else disagrees. Sandstein 10:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein in relation to my original proposal of only linking from the 'List of characters' page, qualified by suitable wording, and removing the links to the historical characters from this page, for sure. Although I did feel my initial change reflected much of the spirit of your Jan 2016 comment (and did appear to have some support when I first floated it in talk, if based on an apparent misunderstanding). But this latest edit, that you reverted, is a specific suggestion made above by an experienced tv page editor, which I support IanB2 (talk) 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandstein actually states a fair point, in which editors would expect to click the links to read more on the figure themselves, instead of just going into more detail (in many cases, only a sentence or two) about the same adaptation of the character. I do revoke my suggestion. And there is also not a consensus formed, as an editor disagree with the edits, meaning that the WP:STATUSQUO should remain until the discussion concludes, as jumping straight into the new edits were bold per WP:BRD - they were bold edits that were reverted, and now it's time to discuss them. I understand the discussion on Rollo, and while many of the historical aspects of the historical figure have been changed to fit the character's adaptation into the series, the character of Rollo in the series is, in some manner, still adapted from the historical figure, and should be linked as such. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy to discuss further. Given StatusQuo I wasn't sure why earlier you reverted my original edit, which we were still discussing. I did edit the main series page precisely in line with your suggestion, and when there was no objection to it. The section-specific links do of course take the reader onto the page for the historical character, but at least land them at a point where they can see that (in most cases) the depiction is not intended to be historically accurate (and indeed in some cases has been time-shifted by forty or fifty years to portray them participating in events outside their lifespan) IanB2 (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@IanB2: You will point to the editors supporting your edits, and the consensus you have formed. By all means, proceed. The status quo is minus the links, as it was your bold edit that added to them a version of the article that had stood for years. You will self-revert. You also claim uncited links, and then restore it yourself. Classic WP:OWN. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

On the Floki link, I agree with you that in the next series it looks likely that the character may follow in the path of a historical one with the same name. Right now, however, there is no citation making the explicit link, and the character hasn't done anything that would establish it. Since in the absence of Viking written records, the only source of names for the series characters comes from sagas and other cultures' accounts, making a link between character and history needs more than just the name. On the other issue, this is one that you seem obsessed to return to, despite the change being proposed by yourself in the first place. This is not constructive editing. The page has been settled since last year and the appropriate starting point is to set out why links to the appropriate sections of another article (some of which are quite long), which is an approach supported by WP policy, is causing any problems for this page. IanB2 (talk) 08:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

And you continue to forget that I revoked the idea of the change, once I realized that it was a bad idea that would not fit this article. By last year, you mean a month or so ago; however, it has not been settled, as you continue to force your unsupported and lacking-consensus version. For this, an extensive incident report has been filed against your actions. Regards. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

RFC for linking in the Cast section

There is as such no policy or so which could affect the relative gravity of votes.By a method of headcount,Option 3 has the greatest support.As it seems, it has been already done.Winged Blades^Godric 17:27, 30 March 2017 (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.

Concerning the entries for the cast and characters of the television series, and based upon the above discussion, should the characters in the Cast section, which are based upon historical figures, be linked to:

The article of the historical figure, with no linking to sections (e.g. Ragnar Lothbrok is linked to Ragnar Lodbrok),
The article of the historical figure, but to the section which describes the character in fictional media (e.g. Ragnar Lothbrok is linked to Ragnar Lodbrok#In popular culture),
The character's entry at List of Vikings characters (e.g. Ragnar Lothbrok is linked to List of Vikings characters#Ragnar Lothbrok) ,
None of the above, and simply cover all characters by using {{main|List of Vikings characters}}?

Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:13, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

My first instinct would just be to link to the historical figure. I would at least rule out the third option; Readers should be able to quickly travel to the page of whichever historical figure the character is based on. Michael Ivan 00:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@MichaelIvan: So, that would be the first option, right? Linking to the historical figure, and not to the section about fictional portrayals in the historical figure's article? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

First would be best. Second would be okay, but not preferable, since the reader is already navigating from the fictional portrayal of the character.Michael Ivan 04:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Option 3 -- the connection to the historical figures is tenuous at best, and these can be linked to from List of Vikings characters#Ragnar Lothbrok etc. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: So, all of the characters should link to List of Vikings characters#<Character Name>? Isn't that overlinking to the same article? Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

sub-discussion on how to handle the RfC.

it doesn't really help to try and argue with each person as they come along, Alex. Your views are all set out above. It's a request for comments - how about we stand back and let others make their comments? IanB2 (talk) 07:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not arguing I'm discussing. That's what discussions are. Point me to an RfC that has had zero comments on other editor's !votes. Please, by all means, I await. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The point of an RfC is to get input from other editors on a disputed question - not for one of the parties whose views are already here at length to challenge every contribution shortly after it is made. Please try to work in a more collaborative way. IanB2 (talk) 07:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

And you don't get to try to dictate when and where discussions can take place. I'm gaining input on the disputed content, and as the editor who started the RfC, I am discussing the suggestions that are presented. Again: Give me an RfC that had zero discussion. You won't find one. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please stop fighting :-). In general, I would not ping another contributor at an RfC, but I'm happy to respond. I chose option 3 because when I click on character's name, I would expect to lear more about the character, rather the historical figure that the character may be loosely based on. I know that the producers do not bill the series as a documentary; so I expect the portrayal to be (semi) fictional. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Coffman, thanks for your contribution. I simply hope others will feel able to add their views without being dragged into a reprise of the original argument.IanB2 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough that. Would it make sense to go with option 4, then, so instead of overlinking on every character, all of the characters could be linked through the use of {{main}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd lean towards option 3 or 4 - putting my user hat on - I feel I would be clicking a link to find out more about the fictional character first. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Given that we're talking about televised fictional representations of historical figures, rather than the actual historical figures themselves, we really should be linking to the relevant section in List of Vikings characters, which really needs to be expanded to show how the character appears in the series, since some license has been taken with the historical figures in order to present them on-screen. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AGree people want to realize character before history person. Option 1 does not do this. Option 2 is okay. Option 3 works with links to pages like option 2. I Do not understand how option 4 solves problem. SO I favor 2+3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.145.183.43 (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hm. There was a similar discussion at WT:FILM quite recently. My gut feeling is that in areas such as Plot and Cast in the form of "Actor as Character", any links should be to the fictionalized version of the character. However, if there's discussion (even a sentence) as to who the character is based on, the actual person should be linked there. I don't think any of the options provided by the RfC really capture this. DonIago (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about whether a participant was right to implement the consensus without waiting for a closure

I don't think it is appropriate for Alex, as a party to the original dispute, to have taken it upon himself to close the RfC and decide the outcome; RfCs should be closed by an uninvolved editor. The replies from the RfC are mixed, with support for and comments on all of the options, with the only real consensus being that we should focus first on the fictionalised character rather than linking directly to the historical figure, which clearly argues against Option 1. I don't have any problem with working from Option 3 on the basis that we flesh out the information on characterisation as Aussie is suggesting. IanB2 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nobody has closed the RfC, a bot just removed the expired template. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to his edit earlier that introduced Option 3 onto the page, with an edit summary announcing that as the consensus. I don't have a problem with this, on the basis that it deals with the issue I rasied way back at the outset. But I would have expected him, or better someone else, to propose an outcome in talk first, not just make the edit. IanB2 (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

It was never closed. But it was, however, extremely clear what the consensus was. An uninvolved editor would have seen exactly the same consensus, and there is no policy that dictates that RfCs must be carried out by an uninvolved editor. I made a WP:BOLD edit. It was not reverted. No-one else seems to have an issue with it, except you. This is simply you nit-picking over any of my edits concerned with the article, and it most certainly is not appreciated. -- Alex^TW 23:54, 17 March 2017 (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.

Irish Production

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why was this taken off? http://iftn.ie/?act1=record&aid=73&rid=4290391&sr=1&only=1&hl=Vikings&tpl=archnews "Internationally acclaimed World 2000 series ‘Vikings’ stars Travis Fimmel, Alexander Ludwig and Katheryn Winnick is filmed in Co. Wicklow and is another example. It was originally developed by Octagon Pictures in Ireland and Take 5 Productions in Canada, with additional funding from the Irish Film Board. It generated €20M revenue in Ireland after its first season alone and recently wrapped filming the fifth." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.80.19 (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi there, after my first draft of the paragraph in dispute ("Historical Accuracy"), I linked the events (and names) of historic importance to the WP articles. Do you not think that this is a basis reliable enough in these cases? We are talking about historic facts like the Lindisfarne raid in 793 - this is not disputed in any secondary or tertiary sources. These links to historic facts are IMHO different from citations and quotations in the first part of the paragraph, were historians discuss special aspects of -for example- social life of the early Middle Ages. I do not have to "prove" that the Lindisfarne raid took place or that the historic Rollo became the first Duke of Normandy in 911! (Of course, we CAN discuss the sentence about Ragnar).ThomasMuentzer (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMuentzer (talk • contribs)

Her's the diff at issue. Generally speaking, all assertions that are not immediately obvious from the TV series require a source, see WP:V and WP:NOR. This includes the assertion that the series "shows events of the viking era which span over more than 120 years", because we don't know whether the events and people portrayed are intended to even reflect their apparent historical counterparts. And, of course, one can't really say that "Ragnar lived and reigned in the 830s and 840s", if even his existence is disputed among historians. Sandstein 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have picked up a similar point in a new talk topic. The series is only loosely based on history and has taken a lot of liberties to increase the drama (for example, there is no historical or legendary link between Ragnar and Rollo; the Rollo/Paris events took place decades later than the events in England portrayed in the series, when Alfred was already king, and Alfred died towards the beginning of Rollo's time in Paris. Making them brothers and bringing the Paris events nearly fifty years forward in time is good drama, but we shouldn't be linking directly from fictional characters to pages that are historical without making clear the history isn't being depicted but is just dramatic inspiration. IanB2 (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This is often an issue with historical fiction. The section on accuracy here is pretty decent compared to some others I've seen, but I have just removed some portions of it. The thing here is that we can't use our own observations in any way to determine what is and is not accurate. That includes basic matters like geography and time frame. Unless there is a source that explicitly discusses the matter as it pertains to this program we run afoul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Vikings characters

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The title of the page List of Vikings characters is under discussion, see talk:List of Vikings characters -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Template: Vikings

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The use and topic and naming of {{Vikings}} is under discussion, see template talk:Vikings -- 70.51.46.15 (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Character links in the lead

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

@MapReader: As a willing and contributing editor, I'll start the discussion for you. The RFC was held 8 months ago and it was in regards to the cast list, not every occurrence of the links in the article, so it barely relates to the current situation, if at all. That means you need to discuss the issue and gain consensus on it, rather than edit-warring; follow bold-revert-discuss and allow the status quo to remain while your edits are in dispute. First and foremost, as I stated, these characters are not purely fictional; that is, they were not made just for the series, they are based on actual historical figures. Therefore, removing all references to the historical figures from the article is more detrimental to the article than anything. Especially to this article, it being the parent article to the television series; it doesn't matter how many clicks it can take to get to the historical figures' articles, this article needs to summarize and link everything important to the series and its components. Your edits also introduces a major case of overlinking; regardless of whether the links are to a section or not, they are to the same article. -- Alex^TW 17:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. The principle considered by the RfC related directly to the divergence between the fictional characters and the historical (or in many cases largely legendary ones) that provided the inspiration. The clear consensus, which you recognised yourself, was that direct link to the historical character was misleading. It's a long established principle of WP that the lead follows the article, and doesn't diverge from it. The potential overlinking was considered during the RfC discussion and discounted. Far from being a bold edit, having the lead reflect the same linking principles as has already been decided by discussion and consensus for the body of the article itself is simple common sense, and I am surprised that you see any significant issue here. The references to the historical characters are within the article and the links to the relevant articles remain. MapReader (talk) 17:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help, but given that it was your initial edits that were disputed, it should have been you who started a discussion as soon as you saw that your edits had been reverted. (However, as I type this, I see you've reverted again, preferring to edit-war rather than wait out a discussion to gain a consensus for your disputed edits. How very disappointing of you.) Yes, I recognized the result of the (short) RFC. However, that was for the cast section, as Travis does not portray the real-life character of Ragnar Lothbrok. However, this article is based on historical events, and therefore needs links to support this - i.e. links to the character. In this case, the lead is not diverging from the article, it is providing summarized information about the series, as a lead is meant to do. I'm surprised that you support the removal of distancing the historical basis of this series from anything related to it on Wikipedia. You state that the "references to the historical characters are within the article and the links to the relevant articles remain"; please point me to where the links to the historical figures of Rollo, Björn Ironside, Lagertha and Aslaug are within this particular article. -- Alex^TW 17:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Aligning article leads with the body of the article is the default approach for WP, and I am surprised that you wish to make a significant issue of this. The reference within the lead to Ragnar is clearly to the historical character, and you will see that I have not amended the link. The other references are to the fictional characters and the linking is exactly the same as such references within the body of the article. Nevertheless I am happy to see what comments other editors have to offer. MapReader (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, I've reverted to the version before this content dispute started. @MapReader:, I'm sorry but the burden is upon you to convince other editors that your edits should be accepted. You don't get to bulldoze your edits into the article and have them sit there while they're under discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't see that aligning a lead with an article was that big a deal, particularly as the issue has an RfC consensus behind it already. Certainly it's not a bold edit. But I am happy to wait and see what views others have to offer. MapReader (talk) 17:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

From recent edits there is clearly continuing concern from editors about linking directly to the historical figures, on which the characters in Vikings are often only loosely based. This concern crops up regularly in the associated talk pages. This was the subject of the RfC earlier this year (in relation to the cast section), where the consensus was that links should be to the List of Characters article, which contains a short summary of the character as well as a direct link to the article of the historical or legendary character on which they are based where relevant. The consensus from the RfC has been applied to the cast section of this article but the Lead still follows the old pre-RfC format. It seems common sense to me that the links from the lead section should follow the same format as agreed for the body of the article. Views from other editors would be appreciated. MapReader (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cast

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is it relevant to mention the seasons the characters/actors appeared in? As in "-character- (seasons 2-4)" Heimatchen (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not think it is nessesary, what are others thoughts? Heimatchen (talk) 10:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I will remove these from the main page within the week, as it seems like there is no interest for or against them. Heimatchen (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's fairly standard practice to include this in cast lists. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed; there's no reason to remove them. -- Alex^TW 17:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments12 people in discussion

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

– Per WP:INCDAB and WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation. Disambiguation is not sufficient as Vikings (TV series) could equally apply to either series. Difficult to disambiguate by nationality as the 2013 series is a Canadian and Irish co-production. --wooden superman 10:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Support per nom. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Vikings (TV series) is the primary topic over the two; no further disambiguation required. -- Alex^TW 11:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Only an undisambiguated title can be a primary topic. i.e. "Vikings". As this is already partially disambiguated, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not relevant and the article title needs to be fully disambiguated so that it is no longer ambiguous. In any case, Vikings (TV documentary series) does not comply with the naming guidelines at WP:NCTV. --wooden superman 12:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Luckily for us, them, I'm not talking about every Vikings article, I'm talking about these two. This is the primary topic over the two. Hatnote is enough. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 12:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out, only an undisambiguated title can be a primary topic. Vikings (TV series) is a partial/incomplete disambiguation, and therefore cannot be a primary topic. --wooden superman 12:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion has been noted. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 12:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The Vikings documentary is what it is; a documentary. It dose not have dramatized costume re-enactments but visits to Viking sites, museums, talking heads (historians etc). As it is, it cannot be confused with a drama series.REVUpminster (talk) 13:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's still a TV series, so the disambiguator "(TV series)" can equally apply. And the disambiguator "(TV documentary series)" is not sanctioned at WP:NCTV. --wooden superman 13:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you going to challenge every editor that opposes you? -- Alex^TW 13:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

No, just pointing out that an argument differs from the guidelines. This is a discussion, after all. As the editor correctly points out, the title for the documentary series is not ambiguous. However the title for the drama series is. --wooden superman 13:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You've pointed out the guidelines and editors are still opposing it. Best to look for a new argument instead of commenting on every opposition with the same argument. -- Alex^TW 13:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm only trying to assist you with the guideline. If you don't understand them, then maybe it's best if you don't comment. I've had a few recent interactions with you, and they've all been less than positive. You may want to address that. --wooden superman 13:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Despite my support for WP:NCTV I have to point out that there are no hard and fast rules. Occasionally there are situations where common sense has to be applied as there are occasional exceptions (that's right there in the banner at the top of NCTV). In this case the present names seem far more logical than names disambiguated by year. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose I see no problems with the Labeling of the two pages they are fine as is JMichael22 (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Per all the above. Not convinced by the above wikilawyering. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose This change would make navigation more confusing as the two dates are so close together. The current titling is fine as people can easily distinguish between programmes on the basis of genre. 79.65.126.84 (talk) 14:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Support - request is absolutely in line with WP:NCTV. WP:NCTV does not use any genre disambiguation (aka 'documentary' as part of a title is unsupported). Concerns about confusion can be addressed with hatnotes and by preserving redirects. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does NOT apply to particular styles of disambiguation, only to undisambiguated titles. WP:INCDAB states that we must increase the differentiation because (TV series) describes BOTH of these topics. Any responses above citing simple personal prefernce (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) should be weighed down heavily in the final count. -- Netoholic @ 21:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose one is a tv series and one is a documentary series 2602:304:28AB:9EE0:B404:E174:35E:75AD (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
- Per WP:NCTV guideline - both are considered TV series. See these examples of which the documentary series Planet Earth (TV series) is listed. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Oppose both are TV Series but one is a documentary and the other is just a regular tv series no need to change page titles LovelyAngle (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2017 (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.

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vikings (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)