Talk:The Rook (miniseries)

Television Low‑importance

	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.

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force.

Episode 7 Title

Starz has the title for Episode 7 listed as "Prologue". Why is Futon Critic allowed as a source? They are so often wrong. https://www.starz.com/series/44140/episodes/45085/details — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.62.120 (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided does not exist. — YoungForever^(talk) 23:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does.

Why do you keep using Futon Critic when it's been proven to be wrong so many times? Why not use the official network websites? This makes no sense. Are you on a mission to make Wikipedia as unreliable as possible? Pennyworth and this show, and no telling how many others are just wrong on futon critic. What's your end goal here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.62.120 (talk) 09:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the Futon Critic is not always wrong. It's only every now and then wrong. Most of the time the Futon Critic is correct. Your anti-use of The Futon Critic is duly noted. — YoungForever^(talk) 00:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all Wikipedia regular editors such huge jerks? I bet you actually thought that was funny. Futon critic is very often wrong. I have pointed out several times you've used it where it was wrong. Why keep using it when it's wrong? It's not authoritative. It purports to publish press releases (though in reality it actually just guesses a lot of times as was the case here). Why not use the official press releases or a real trade publication instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.62.120 (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks. I recommend remaining civil. Again, the Futon Critic is not always wrong only you assumed so. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 August 2019

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: No consensus. I believe a relisting will not result in reaching a consensus, particularly as a new line of discussion began with respect to "should it even be TV?" Based on reviewing the discussion, I think that consensus will be able to be reached once the decision to renew or not has been made. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:27, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rook (miniseries) → The Rook (TV series) – Besides The Ringer mention of it being a miniseries [[1]], I can't find many reliable sources talking about that, nor it has been officially confirmed that it's a miniseries. At the very least, it should be moved until the season ends and there is a confirmation in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Support~~ Oppose:~~If there is only one source claimed it's a miniseries/limited series whereas multiple sources called it a TV series than it is a TV series, not a miniseries/limited series.~~ I just noticed that there multiple reliable sources called it a "miniseries" or "limited series", I believe it's still a miniseries. The chances of getting renew are low at this point. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: There are multiple reliable sources referring to the show as a miniseries, including People^[1], Scifi Now^[2], Bustle^[3] and MSN news^[4]. And The Hollywood Reporter called it a "limited series.^[5] So unless it's been officially stated elsewhere, that it's not a miniseries, I don't think it should be changed. CleverTitania (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Miniseries has different definitions to different people and should be avoided. TV series is understood by all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give some resources to support this argument? There are other terms for miniseries, but I am not familiar with any other meanings, beyond "a television program that tells a story in a predetermined, limited number of episodes." And to my knowledge, the term miniseries is not avoided on Wikipedia when it's clearly applied, as evidenced by The_Stand_(1994_miniseries), North_and_South_(miniseries) and Ascension_(miniseries). And Ascension is even if a bit of an anomaly, as there was talk of adding another season, but because that was not done and it was originally intended to have a limited number of episodes, it's still referred to as a miniseries. CleverTitania (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The commonest definition that I've heard is a very short TV series, usually of no more than 2−4 episodes. The meaning you understand is one that only seems to have arrived in common usage relatively recently, is primarily an American usage, and is still highly ambiguous everywhere, as has been discussed elsewhere. At the end of the day, why bother making the distinction? It doesn't add anything to disambiguation and is ambiguous in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hence why I asked if you could provide a link to this "elsewhere" discussion you're referring to? If there is a policy, or even just a general consensus discussion on Wikipedia to that effect that the term miniseries is ambiguous or unclear, I would like to read it. Because that definition, which I copied directly from and linked to in the English-speaking Wikipedia, is not remotely "recent." It's about 50 years old. And I'm an avid watcher of UK TV, and occasional watcher of Australian TV, and I rarely hear the term miniseries used in those regions, much less used in any other way beyond the definitions in that Wiki article - none of which define a mini-series in strict numerical terms. Yes, there are words (like serial or limited series) which are used in place of miniseries. But that a word has synonyms which are in more common usage elsewhere, does not change it's own common definition. Nor do we stop using a word because other countries use other words. We use the terminology and spelling (i.e. colour vs. color) that is common usage in the country that produced the piece of media in question.

As far it not being worth making the distinction and it being ambiguous, that is (per WP:RMCOMMENT) a "groundless opinion" or "proof by assertion," and "all positions need to be based in policy, guidelines and consensus." We do not move pages just because it won't hurt to move them. Just the opposite. We only move pages if there is a compelling reason to do so. The distinction is defining a series which was meant to have a finite run and one that was (barring cancellation) intended to carry on past it's original run. That is, in my opinion, an encyclopedic distinction. And I provided multiple examples of current Wikipedia articles, for shows from different decades, which support that position. But there are even older examples, such as The_National_Dream_(miniseries). All of these articles (and their empty move logs) support that the term miniseries is in common page-title usage throughout the English Wikipedia, both historically and currently. Thus, if you'd like to argue that the term is ambiguous and causes any confusion, and that there is a justification for the move, you would need to provide some documentation or resources to support that argument. CleverTitania (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per Necrothesp, and especially if it gets renewed for a second season, as I expect it will. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per previous comments, and the fact that "miniseries" is not, as some people would believe, a deprecated means of disambiguation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was deprecated. I said it was ambiguous and pointless. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Linear ratings aren't hugely important for renewal for premium cable networks such as Starz(Who track ondemand and streaming), so there's every chance the show could be renewed. Esuka (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment YoungForever, CleverTitania, Alex 21 Starz launched the promo for the final episode, and markets it as a "season finale". Not "series finale". [2]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay? And has it been renewed? No? Miniseries. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If anything, "TV" would be the biggest problem. TV is an old concept. You might be watching Netflix on your TV. but that doesn't mean you are watching TV. Is there a problem with The Rook (miniseries) versus The Rook (series)? Is The Rook (series) ambiguous? "Miniseries" is a description, not a name. I think "mini" in "miniseries" means 2-8. It means a single production run. If the series runs into a second year, MOVE to The Rook (series), otherwise there is nothing that needs changing. WP:TITLECHANGES. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to The Rook (series) is completely unacceptable. "Television" isn't just a "medium" – it's also a format. Pretty much anything "streamed" on Netflix or Hulu is still a "TV series", and anyone arguing otherwise is arguing in circles. This is doubly true in the case of The Rook as it actually is "broadcast" on a (premium) television channel: Starz. If(/when) The Rook is renewed for a second season, this article unambiguously falls under WP:NCTV and should properly be moved to The Rook (TV series), no "if, ands, or buts". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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.

[1] ttps://people.com/tv/the-rook-star-olivia-munn-thought-she-was-the-only-american-in-a-classic-british-spy-thriller/

[2] ttps://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/the-rook-new-trailer-and-posters-have-their-memories-wiped/

[3] ttps://www.bustle.com/p/what-happened-to-myfawny-on-the-rook-anyone-could-have-it-out-for-her-18144958

[4] ttps://www.msn.com/en-sg/entertainment/celebrity/joely-richardson-helped-save-mans-life-while-filming-the-rook/ar-AAE1C2L

[5] ttps://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/dear-white-people-showrunner-developing-comedy-at-starz-1220805

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]