Talk:Vikings (TV series)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Requested move 13 January 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. While !votes were evenly split, supporting votes had the edge in invoking WP:INCDAB, which recommends this solution in cases where two TV series share the same name, and neither is the primary topic. In closing, I re-read the discussion of December 2017, and found that while opposes were then in the majority, many of their arguments were weak (in particular, the argument that the documentary series is not a "TV series"). As such, I gave less consideration to opposing comments here that just invoked the last RM. At any rate, I see no clear, policy-based reason not to follow INCDAB, so the article will be moved. Cúchullain ^t/c 22:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

---

Vikings (TV series) → Vikings (2013 TV series) – Per WP:INCDAB and WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation to disambiguate it from the docuseries of the same name—which is also a TV series (like Planet Earth (TV series)). Difficult to disambiguate by nationality as the 2013 series is a Canadian and Irish co-production. The previous RM appeared to result in some confusion over whether an episodic series that aired on television was a TV series. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Starting a new RM because you were too late to join the previous one? -- Alex^TW 06:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Partly, yes; but mostly for the reason I stated. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe there's something against the reopening of requested moves too soon after they were closed as "not move" (over "no consensus"). Seeing if I can find this... (Makes it worse that it was reopened because you thought you were too late.) -- Alex^TW 06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I found WP:NOTMOVED (which applies as the previous RM was "not move" rather than "no consensus", but I think there's something stronger than that. -- Alex^TW 06:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not reopened. The previous one is above. Once again, this one was opened because: The previous RM appeared to result in some confusion over whether an episodic series that aired on television was a TV series. Please read the request itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to you or anyone else to claim that people were confused - they read the RM, they knew the topic, and they voted as they did. Simply because you disagree with their decision, doesn't mean you get to say "you don't get it". Also read: this notifies other editors that they should probably not propose this move in the future until and unless circumstances change. I recommend this RM be closed as premature. -- Alex^TW 06:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging JMichael22 as the closer of the previous RM - thoughts? -- Alex^TW 06:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose while this RM remains open, per the reasons given in the previous RM, which was closed as "not move". There was no confusion; the IP is just seeing what they want to see because they were too late to join the discussion. -- Alex^TW 06:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Please don’t attempt to read my mind or to make it sound like you have. Most of the opposing votes claimed that a documentary series (again, like Planet Earth (TV series)) wasn’t a “real” TV series. You yourself claimed that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC supported applying it to disambiguated titles, which it does not appear to. It was either confusion or deception, so I stand by my claim. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Even the previous closer agrees with the situation, per below. You stated in your summary that you personally think it's deliberately deception, so there's no AGF here. I recommend you quit while you're ahead. -- Alex^TW 06:59, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• You’re twisting my words when they’re not even on this page. Kindly abide by WP:AGF yourself. AGF means not assuming bad faith. I’m not accusing anyone of bad faith because I’m not assuming bad faith. Discounting the bad-faith possibility of deception leaves only the possibility of a misunderstanding of the policies and guidelines in question. Clear? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

When I revert you for editing my posts, then you do it again, then I know you're editing in bad faith. You're saying that you're not saying it's deception only because of AGF, meaning that you believe it's deception. I'll use AGF when you do. Clear? -- Alex^TW 07:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I did not touch your post, only corrected its threading per WP:TPO. If you like, I can explain the technical issues on your talkpage, or you can see Help:List#Common mistakes (bearing in mind that talkpage threads are a type of list). But in short, changing the list markup in the middle of a list (from * to :) confuses the user agent, which is particularly problematic for vision-impaired users. So, no, I did not fix that in bad faith. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The formatting was part of my post. It was bad faith when you did it again after I reverted you. Don't edit my posts again. Crystal clear? -- Alex^TW 07:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It rather seems more in bad faith to deliberately reintroduce an error in your layout (not formatting) markup, after it was corrected in accordance with the talk page guidelines. But we’ve veered off topic; if you care to argue over whose faith is worse, shall we take this to your talk page? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'll format my posts ho I seem fit. Let's continue the actual discussion for this RM, the one where the previous closer opposes it and says it shouldn't have even be reopened, and the documentary RM, which has a clear consensus of oppose as well. Feels like no discussion is really needed, after all! -- Alex^TW 07:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, a consensus does seem to be forming for a similar move to this one. Which was what prompted this one, in fact; it wouldn’t make much sense to keep (TV series) alongside (2012 TV series). But you should take care to format (and lay out) your posts as WP:TPG sees fit. And please don’t attack those who attempt to help you do that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sure, the consensus with all of the "the lack of any" support votes by other editors. Thank you for your unasked-for help - I'll format my posts as I see fit. Been doing it for years, will continue to do so. -- Alex^TW 08:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought I said, but I mean the year title that some respondants are proposing, not my proposal. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, yes, two people. Great work! -- Alex^TW 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly the IP felt left out and in no way should this even be discussed again. The consensus was reached and was closed. Page should stay as is. JMichael22 (talk) 06:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@JMichael22: nothing personal here, but unfortunately you have just invalidated your previous close as a non-admin close, because in voting against WP:AT which is a policy, your good faith close now looks like a supervote. Generally non-admins don't close controverted RMs, certainly not RMs where large numbers of editors are voting against policy for an article to be an exception. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose We just did this, there was no confusion as claimed in the nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
  • There were claims that the other TV series isn’t a “real” or “normal” TV series. There were those who seemed unaware of WP:INCDAB, which says this title should redirect to a dabpage. If not confusion, what would you call it? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

There was no confusion; don't talk AGF when you're assuming people have no idea what they're talking about. You're sour because you were too late to join in. I should find out where we go to get this closed, to prevent further accusations and disruption. -- Alex^TW 08:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

To prevent further accusations, please stop making them. A lack of competence or information does not preclude good faith, so there is no conflict there; it’s perfectly possible to act in good faith without knowing what you’re doing. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You stated that you believe there was deliberate deception, and admitted yourself to opening this RM because you missed out. Best to quick while you're (somewhat) ahead. -- Alex^TW 08:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don’t know what you’re trying to get out of twisting my words, but please stop. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Not twisting them. Reading them as you posted them. What would be even better and the ultimate act of good faith is you closing this malformed RM as the nominator. -- Alex^TW 08:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as I believe the encyclopedia would be better served having this ambiguous title redirect to dab, I respectfully disagree. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Good faith is also recognizing the opinions of your fellow editors, and it looks like many of them disagree with your opinion that these movies would serve Wikipedia for the better. -- Alex^TW 08:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Where would you suggest it be moved, then? Because we have two TV series, so this title is ambiguous; I don’t think you could find any reliable sources that claim the documentary isn’t a TV series, and there are plenty that say it is. And per WP:INCDAB, a title like this should redirect to Viking (disambiguation)#Television. How should we best remedy this besides following WP:NCTV conventions? Move to Vikings (drama TV series)? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope. We leave it where it is. Both of them. Now get the point and stop beating a DEADHORSE. Nobody here has agreed with you. -- Alex^TW 10:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What I’m trying to do at this point is called consensus-building, not dead-horse-beating. Without a move, the present name violates INCDAB; why is this okay? You’ve never given your rationale. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus building is what happened in the last discussion. A consensus was built. No consensus is required to be built here. This is dead-horse-beating because you're sour you missed out on the discussion. Reasons given in the last discussion. -- Alex^TW 12:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus is built through rationale for following or subverting policies and guidelines. You have given no such rationale regarding WP:INCDAB. I’m no more sour about “missing out” than you are about P&G not agreeing with you, so please stop trying to pick a fight and just give your reasoning. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - no one who has resisted the guidelines being applied to this TV series has given a reason why this should be an exception. Given that something with 3 episodes is clearly also a series. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  It's just a guideline, not a hard and fast rule that must be obeyed at all costs. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  Exactly, I read all of the tiresome wikilawyering on this point in the previous RM before stating my position. I did not find it persuasive. I still don’t, and it’s not because I was a confused rube who just fell off the turnip truck. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  Haha, did I really come off like that’s what I thought? Wow, I’m sorry. Really didn’t mean to be a jerk. But I don’t think it’s fair to call it wikilawyering when it’s exactly the sort of scenario the rule is made for. Can I ask why you weren’t persuaded, why you think this should be an exception? Or if your thinking’s the same as Aussie’s below, fair enough. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - for the same reasons stated in the previous RM. Nothing has changed in the last 22 days. As I stated then, 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 (✉) 13:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title is appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  @Rreagan007: But WP:ATDAB is a policy "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.", WP:NCTV is the project guideline applying WP:ATDAB policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• @AlexTheWhovian: can I suggest time out. 67.14.236.50 is not a normal passing IP, I recognize this as an editor who has been present on RM discussions for years and has a very good understanding of policy. The 19 December 2017 RM should not have been (in good faith) shut down by one of the non-admin voters and 67.14.236.50 reopening it is reasonable under these circumstances. I have to say I am quite surprised by the number of unfamiliar names here and the clear opposition to normal titling. Is what's happening that the banner on the article is pulling in users who aren't familiar with how WP:ATDAB works? Or is there something else that makes this article special? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your suggestion is noted. Thanks but no thanks. -- Alex^TW 07:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: If I may posit a possible rationale for opposing: Vikings, the TV drama, is the secondary topic for the plural word (meaning it would be primary if not for the Nordic people—a concept which, to my knowledge, does not exist), so it gets partial disambiguation as an honorary primary topic (also a concept which does not exist). The nonexistence of these concepts in policy is irrelevant if they appeal to common sense. (If you oppose this move, please let me know if I’m pulling this explanation out of my butt. But it’d make sense to me at least if someone explained it this way.) —67.14.236.50 (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – basically a procedural one: we just did this, and the decision was made. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this was just completed already nothing at all has changed the previous decision was 8-2 for Opposing the change. there is absolutely no reason for another discussion, the nom felt left out of the voting for that reason alone no change should be done. The current vote stands at 7-2 for Opposing clearly nothing has changed. LovelyAngle (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE
• Support per WP:INCDAB and WP:NCTV. Please also note the previous discussion was incorrectly closed by an editor who had participated in the discussion. --woodensuperman 09:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that because of this, the consensus of opposition formed by the other editors was automatically deemed invalid? -- Alex^TW 12:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm saying the close is invalid. Previous RM should really have been re-opened to allow further discussion and a later close by a non-involved editor. The whole thing's a mess to be honest. --woodensuperman

You want it reopened? So we have two RMs for the same topic? Nevertheless, the consensus is clear. -- Alex^TW 12:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I said it should have been re-opened. Now we have a mess. And I disagree that the consensus is as clear as you think. Some of the !votes have been made by drive-by editors, or editors who don't seem to grasp the concept of our guidelines, and some are procedural, which in the light of the validity of the previous close, are misguided. --woodensuperman 12:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nope: How they came by the RM is irrelevant. Nope again: They !voted with their own thoughts, it's not up to you or anyone else to validate or invalidate them. -- Alex^TW 13:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is up to the closing editor to validate or invalidate them. Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus: "the quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority"; "any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it". etc, etc. --woodensuperman 13:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is up to the closing editor to validate or invalidate them. Exactly. Is that you? No. So, it's not up to you or anyone else to validate or invalidate them. You can quote guidelines as much as you want, it's up to the closer to determine what the outcome is. -- Alex^TW 13:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that what I just said? Unfortunately there was no closing editor to make this judgement on the previous close, as the editor that closed it had already participated in the discussion... --woodensuperman 13:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is, so I'm confused as to why you think that you can judge who voted why. Simply because there wasn't an uninvolved closing editor, doesn't mean you get to take up that rein. -- Alex^TW 13:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You're just putting words into my mouth now. I'm done with you. --woodensuperman 13:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You're saying that the opinions of the other editors here are invalid because you don't think that they read the guidelines. Some of the !votes have been made by drive-by editors, or editors who don't seem to grasp the concept of our guidelines, and some are procedural. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I was pointing out to you why the "consensus" might not be as clear cut as you think. I did not suggest that I get to judge the final close. --woodensuperman 13:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not done? Okay. Consensus is, primarily, agreement between editors. There is a clear agreement of opposition; supports are a minority. -- Alex^TW 13:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

From WP:Consensus: Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Making exceptions to guidelines is fine, but acting as if the guidelines don’t exist or are simply invalid is not how consensus works. The closer should be an uninvolved editor who takes that into account, and disregards a simple majority that largely doesn’t even acknowledge guidelines. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support per WP:INCDAB and WP:NCTV. Two guidelines against nothing but a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:STONEWALL / WP:FILIBUSTER from super-fans of the fiction show. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply to disambiguations, only to base names. The half-baked "local consensus" going on here is against WP:CONLEVEL policy, and would cause a lot of problems in the long run, inspiring the re-litigation of potentially hundred of RM discussions (maybe even more by way of analogy between two types of TV shows and two types of something else).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  PS: Another option is to get consensus to change at WT:NCTV to change NCTV to say to use "(TV miniseries)" or something for short-run productions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Two guidelines against nothing but a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:STONEWALL / WP:FILIBUSTER from super-fans of the fiction show. At best this is a bad faith response. At worst it's ... well, I'd rather not say. For a start, I am not super-fan of the show at all. My oppose was based on a common sense appraisal of the situation and consideration for our readers. I am not so inflexible as to believe that guidelines should be followed to the letter at all times. In fact, as I've pointed out, the banner at the top of the guideline says there are occasional exceptions. If you use a bit of common sense you can see that this is one of those times. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Notice: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television), Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation, and Wikipedia:Article titles have been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment To avoid any procedural red-herring, I've deleted the resulting non-admin close from the previous requested move. Per WP:RMNAC, closers must be uninvolved in the discussion, so User JMichael2 had no permission to close it, and it was invalid. The current requested move should proceed on its own merits. Diego (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support as per SMcC. Some of the earlier contributions to this debate are some way from the spirit of friendly co-operative editing towards which WP should strive. MapReader (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - request is absolutely in line with WP:NCTV, which includes adding year as an easy way to additionally disambiguate. 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) or "procedural" grounds should be weighed down heavily in the final count. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic and Woodensuperman: Best to ping other editors when you talk about them elsewhere, especially at User talk:Netoholic#Vikings despair. How very bad faith. -- Alex^TW 22:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

And the MOS is advice, not laws. Those of us who oppose this move are perfectly aware of what the MOS says on this topic, and feel like it isn’t worth “enforcing” here as the current title is sufficient. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support the move as proposed to eliminate any confusion (and put these repeat move discussions to rest). Although, to be honest I'd have been OK with moving the other "series" to Vikings (miniseries) -- at what appears to be a planned limited release of three episodes, it seems a stretch to call this a "series". Even if the page is moved, I'd have no problem with leaving Vikings (TV series) as a redirect to the new article title (at least for until a few years after the series is off air). older ≠ wiser 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bkonrad: At an RM for the other series, I raised (and would still support) the “miniseries” alternative, and User:Woodensuperman objected on the grounds that It's not a miniseries. And about a “TV series” redirect, wouldn’t that violate WP:INCDAB? But I’d support an exception for that much more easily than for the actual title. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It isn't a miniseries, as this is generally used for fictional TV series. I also don't think that we should use "miniseries" as a disambiguator, as this isn't really sufficient to disambiguate from other TV series. And yes, leaving the redirect pointing here would be in violation of WP:INCDAB which suggests that the partially ambiguated title should redirect to a dab page as it is still ambiguous. --woodensuperman 09:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose This seems the primary topic, and doesn't need further disambiguation. A hatnote is sufficient here directing people searching for the lesser known topic. --Jayron32 01:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't Vikings the primary topic? Per WP:PTOPIC, we can't have two. Diego (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
    • WP:PTOPIC uses wording like "phrase" and "term" instead of "name" or "title". So here, the historical Vikings are the primary topic for "Vikings" but this television series is the primary topic for the term "Vikings (TV series)" since it is the primary topic in the class of articles on television series named "Vikings". ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      • But "(TV series)" is a parenthetical disambiguator, not the "ambiguous term" that disambiguation policies refer to. The term is "Vikings", which already has a primary topic that is not the series. "Vikings (TV series)" is not the name of the series, it's a title made up by wikipedians, so PTOPIC does not apply. Diego (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. WP:INCDAB does not prohibit this type of titling. WP:INCDAB simply indicates what to do with the less-qualified title if the naming conventions don't use it for an article. The use or not of this title here is up to WP:NCTV. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @JHunterJ: By my read, INCDAB indicates what to do with the less-qualified title if it is still ambiguous, such as this one (since there is more than one same-named TV series with an article). It does not allow for a more-specific-but-still-ambiguous title to be used for an article. Please correct me if I’ve misread. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • If it's accepted that this is the primary topic among TV series named Vikings, then it is arguably not still ambiguous, since the overwhelming majority of people searching/navigating using this term are expecting this page and not another one. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
    • It does need to be clarified, because there are those possible readings. But WP:INCDAB in particular is about not creating a disambiguation page at a still-ambiguous qualified title. Instead of a disambiguation page there, the qualified title that isn't going to be correct for any article (or redirect) instead should redirect back to the unqualified disambiguation page. If the article naming conventions (generally or for a particular topic) use both the less-qualified title and also further-qualified titles for articles (or redirects), then the dab guidelines don't enter into it. IMO. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair point. I still disagree (per Diego in the above thread), but I see where you’re coming from. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is pretty clearly the primary topic among TV series named "Vikings". Pedantic and overly technical adherence to guidelines shouldn't override what is most convenient to users/readers of Wikipedia. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
• I want to reiterate that this is standard operating procedure under WP:NCTV and WP:DAB. The fact that this has been RMed several times without consensus isn't a rationale to oppose, but evidence that the current name isn't working and we need a new one. Just do what we always do. I was tolerant of IAR arguments in previous discussions, but the more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that using Vikings (TV series) for this is WP:OWNish and fanwanky special pleading that would set a terrible precedent and inspire innumerable pointless and disruptive RMs on the basis of fandom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • SMcCandlish, did you know that you've already written a support statement above? A true Viking! Randy Kryn (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

    Derp. This has been re-re-re-discussed so many times I lost track. I've removed the additional Support intro.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support, as I did in the above RM. Even if the documentary series is called a documentary, that still would require a year to differentiate this one. There are two series' with the same name, so in this case adding a year seems the common way that Wikipedia handles this situation. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2018 (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.

Genre

With the introduction of wanderer and heavy implications of him being a god, is it not transformed into supernatural drama or something like that. 213.149.51.151 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source? And who is "him"? -- Alex^TW 22:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"References" Section filled with Backlink Spam

I've deleted it twice and both times my changes have been reverted, so here it is on the "Talk" page. For those that do not know, "backlinks" are links that drive traffic and/or lend Google "juice" to a website page, used by Internet Marketers. Wikipedia has high PR (Page Rank) and links from Wikipedia to someone else's website are highly desirable. People pay money for high-quality backlinks. There is a significant financial incentive to create links from Wikipedia to "wherever" and people do pay to have these links dropped into Wikipedia by unscrupulous Wikipedia Editors. So it's important for anyone looking into this situation to keep this fundamental point firmly in mind. Are those links in the "References" section because they are truly useful and lend something to the Article that is in accordance with the "spirit" of Wikipedia, or are they slipped into the Article under a weak pretext in order to make some anonymous nobody some money?

I say it's "B". They lend nothing to the Article. Who cares when the DVD's were released, it's a fact so unimportant that a valid argument could be made to not even include that information in the Article. Besides that, I'm fairly certain some parts of the planet had different release dates than others, meaning not only is it a stupid and irrelevant fact, but it's also tediously complex and it's inclusion detracts value from the Article and does not add to it.

But most importantly, even if these tediously complex and yet irrelevent and uninteresting facts are for some unknown reason required to be included, what "authority" does some anonymous, no-name Amazon vendor, or some other internet huckster have. Is "www.easyDVD.blech" a "reliable source", or is the website's owner just a shekel-grubbing huckster who happens to have a Wikipedia account, taking advantage of other Editor's ignorance of the value of spammy backlinks in order to slide a few into an otherwise good Article in order to make a few pennies. I leave it to others to sort out the details. My role here is to "blow the whistle" and now I'm OUT.2605:6000:6947:AB00:7DC2:6829:634C:762D (talk) 08:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

They were never "snuck" in there; it is common practice based on WP:CONSENSUS to use Amazon or other retailers as sources for the release dates, and further common practice based on the same consensus to include when home media was released. If you disagree, you need to take it elsewhere, as this affects a great multitude of articles; hundreds, if not thousands. t's unfortunate you don't wish to discuss this further; thank you for your contributions, we'll leave this discussion here to be archived. -- Alex^TW 09:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)