Talk:The Gifted (American TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Split[edit]

Just a note to those watching this article, now that the first season is done and we know there will be another I am working on splitting off season articles from this page, and probably a separate character list as well. I am working through a whole lot of interviews and stuff from the last year that hadn't been added here yet, and there should be more than enough content to justify the split. I just thought I'd let you know beforehand rather than spring such major changes on the article out of nowhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing that in this "splitting", you seem to have removed sourced, RW info, as well as the subsection on Nazism. Could you please explain your rationale for doing so? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed anything, just moved things around. The Nazism section is now at The Gifted (season 1) since it is specific commentary about the first season that does not apply to the second (at the moment, this could change). If it was a more substantial subsection, then a summary of it could go here, but we aren't at that point yet, and just having the same subsection at both articles is unnecessary duplication. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it in the main article? No. Therefore, it has in fact been moved. I consider the comparisons to be instrinsic to the series (and I clearly understand that you - and you alone - feel differently), and as such, they shouldn't be relegated to a subsidiary article.
While I am not upset at your industriousness at creating all these subsidiary articles, I do question the optimism at doing so. Are you sure that the series is going to require all of the extra room you are providing? It barely had enough ratings to be renewed for season two, and could easily be canned if ratings don't improve. Explain your thoughts, please.
Additionally, since this move was all on your own, please utulize BRD. The section on nazism - considered instrinsic to the series via sources - stays until consensus suggests otherwise. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, there is no need for the hostility. "Removed" and "moved" are not the same thing. And who are you to say that I am the sole person in existence to take this position? Just calm down, and let us discuss.
I disagree with your interpretation of BRD here given the edit you believe is "bold" has stood unchallenged for months while your edit was challenged straight away, but I'm not going to argue or edit war over it in the hopes of keeping this quick and simple.
All of the articles I created during the split meet GNG, I wouldn't have done it otherwise. There is also room for improvement, as always, and I do intend to do some major work on the season 1 article in the near future. I don't think there is any unnecessary amount of "room" here. If I did not make the split and we had all of the information still here plus the upcoming season 2 information then I think a split would have been necessary by that point anyway, so there was a bit of preemption as well. I have worked on series with only a couple of seasons that have good series and season articles, so it is possible if we put the work in. By the way, I wouldn't say the show barely had the ratings for renewal since it got an early renewal, and these days series are getting renewals on even lower ratings anyway.
As for the Nazism stuff, we can't make decisions on what is "intrinsic" to the whole series when we have only seen the first season. I am absolutely not against having stuff like this here, so don't think I am totally against this and trying fight you. I just don't think we can be saying something applies to the whole series when we don't know that. You are making a strong, impassioned claim here (I consider the comparisons to be instrinsic to the series) which I assume is based on something we can use, so if you have a source saying that this is an important part of the series as a whole rather than just commentary of some season 1 episodes then you should go ahead and provide it. That will help bring this issue to a close. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, sorry for the perceived 'hostility'. I wasn't intending it (but maybe there's some residual ill-will from your catastrophic failure at AN/I). I'll try to clean-slate our interactions here.
We do not know that the nazism allusions will not carry throughout the series. We know that they were a major part of the first season, and there is no cited material that suggests that season 2 would be any different. As per WP:FUTURE, we shouldn't make any assumptions as to what s2 will or won't be about, sans references. For me, tha tis the crux of the argument. That you made these changes unilaterally (again, not a criticism but instead an observation) means you are invested in maintaining that edit. It doesn't matter if its been in place for a while, mainly because we were frying bigger fish during these past few months. Now, I am not suggesting that we undo the calving of the article into different, subsidiary articles (as I am as optimistic about the series as you are), but I think that since this is the main article, it contains all the main points. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not totally disagreeing with you here. I think it comes down to interpretation of WP:FUTURE. You seem to be saying that we don't know that it will not be important in the second season, so it is fine to assume that it will be, but that to me is a clear violation of the policy. We don't know if it will be important or not, so I think we need to err on the side of caution and leave it out until we actually know. If you want more eyes on this for some third-party opinions, I would suggest leaving a note at WT:FUTURE inviting people to comment on this specific issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jack on this particular issue. There's been no indication of a change in premise or themes for the upcoming season (which still has yet to debut, so given the climate these days, who's to say it won't be cancelled before then?) and when the comments were made, they were made about the series as a whole. The comments belong in the main article. Even if there were a big shift in theme in season 2, I'm not sure commentary on themes is something that should be cleaved off into season articles (unless the conceit of the series itself were to be that every season has a particular and distinct theme). —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think those are valid points, but you are still making assumptions about a future event we have not yet seen. I just don't think we can assume the themes are staying the same, and the commentary we have is season specific, since it was specifically in response to elements seen in the first season. That is why I suggested we have a larger section on commentary at the first season page, responding to elements found in that season, and then have more of a summary here that can cross over the whole series. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of the point of WP:FUTURE; we don't predict the future. If a (reliably-sourced) theme was present in season one, we maintain that it is going to stay the same until we have references that say otherwise. We do not alter the course of the article in any way - the references do that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that things are going to stay the same between two separate seasons, without anything to back that up, is making a prediction. I am not predicting that it is going to stay the same or change, I am just saying we shouldn't make any implications either way until we have evidence that it is going to be the same. We wouldn't assume that things like this are getting carried over to a film sequel without a source, and it should be the same for seasons of TV shows (gone are the days where every TV show does just the same thing for several years with minimal development, these days there are often major changes between every season of a show). If you still think we are allowed to assume what will happen in the future based on what has already happened, then I would suggest again that we get some more opinions on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point of view, and I understand the confusion between our points of view. You are approaching the issue from the point of the editors not making changes without new information. I am approaching the issue from point of editors acting on the only information currently in our possession. As Wikipedia operates solely off of references (hence, WP:OR and WP:SYN); iow, if we can only work with the data we have. If that seems predictive to you, that's only because we are carrying forward the references that we have, without anticipation of the sources we might at some future point receive. Does that explain my point of view better? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand where you are coming from. You are saying that something applied to the series (as it was), and so we need proof that the series is going to change moving forward. I am saying that it applied to the first season, and so we need proof that the next season is going to continue that. I guess an argument can be made for both, but I do feel that if I took the position that you are taking I would most certainly be challenged by a significant number of experienced editors on my interpretation, so I standby my opposing you here. With that said, and an eye to the future, I would be happy to leave the section as it is in both articles for now as a compromise. What ends up exactly where once more work has been done to the articles can be decided once we can see what we are looking at. Does that work for you? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frost sisters vs. Stepford Cuckoos[edit]

So here and relatedly at List of The Gifted characters: while it's appropriate to link to the Stepford Cuckoos article for Esme and co. as that's obviously the characters on whom they are based, they have only ever been referred to as "the Frost sisters" in the series. As such, that's how we should refer to them in articles on the TV series (unless specifically referencing their genesis) unless how they are commonly referred to in the series changes. Apparently Adamstom.97 feels this should not be the case; I encourage him to provide a rationale that justifies his opinion. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been using "Stepford Cuckoos" as the collective name for them in cast/character lists because that is how all the sources were referring to them, and it was referenced in an episode as well. However, I have then gone on to refer to them as Esme, Phoebe, and Sophie Frost, which is how they are commonly referred to in the show. I think that covers all the bases and gives due weight to all the different sources we have. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember "Cuckoos" being mentioned in any of the episodes... but I'm willing to admit I might have missed it if it only happened once. I'm not sure we should be following sources other than the primary ones for character names in cast lists, though. Like I said, if it's something along the lines of "Samuels plays all three Frost sisters, based on the Stepford Cuckoos from the comics," sure. But if it's in a "List of The Gifted characters", then the appropriate way to refer to them collectively would be "the Frost sisters" (so far) because in that case, the canonical character names come from the episodes, not from 3rd party sources. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They said that "Cuckoos" was another name the three had used at one point. The difference here is that we can say 'the Frost sisters, based on the Stepford Cuckoos, including Esme, Phoebe, and Sophie' or 'the Stepford Cuckoos - Esme, Phoebe, and Sophie Frost'. It's not a big difference, and not really a major issue for me, but I think it just makes sense to use the simpler form since we have a lot of sources (including straight from the production team) using Stepford Cuckoos. I feel like this is also similar to how we would refer to a family band, rather than giving the family name, stating the band name, and then listing who is in the family. Also, the list of characters should still use third party sources over the primary source. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 September 2018[edit]

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: moved. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 14:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted (TV series) → The Gifted (U.S. TV series) – Necessary disambiguation from the recent 2018 The Gifted (Thai TV series). Doing this as a RM so there's no controvery... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:59, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. 98.68.172.18 (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - per WP:NCTV, but that article just looks horrible. --Gonnym (talk) 15:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom per WP:NCTV. Uncontroversial - should this be speedy moved? Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and WP:NCTV - Brojam (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure it can't be primary if it's not at The Gifted. If it's parenthetically disambiguated (which in this case seems reasonable, basically on recency grounds), then WP:NOPRIMARY. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NOPRIMARY does not define any cases where there is no primary topic, it is only talking about what to do when there is no primary topic. There very clearly is a primary topic here per PRIMARYTOPIC, just take a look at the other page which literally has 3 references. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't think you're getting my point: unless the TV series is primary for all references to "The Gifted", then it cannot be the primary topic. Something can't be a primary topic for a subset of things that are called "The Gifted" (in this case, TV programs). That's incomplete disambiguation. If a topic needs parenthetical disambiguation, then it must be fully disambiguated. So unless you are going to argue that this page should be at The Gifted (which is a completely different discussion), then your point that it shouldn't be moved to The Gifted (U.S. TV series) is invalid. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    NOPRIMARY doesn't say anything like that, and this is the first time I have heard that "If a topic needs parenthetical disambiguation, then it must be fully disambiguated". - adamstom97 (talk) 00:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "unacceptable" is a strong word when the guideline you linked to has nothing to do with the current issue. Can you guys just show me where it says that disambiguation must be full, every time, or that we cannot have a primary topic among subtopics, so we can get this sorted? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to it – WP:INCDAB. In addition, I can tell you that it's been shown over and over and over again at WP:RM that editors do not like, and will not go for, "primary subtopics". The best course of action here is to let this RM play out, and have the article moved to the correctly disambiguated title – and then, if you have support for the proposition that it's actually the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, follow this up with a second requested move proposal to The Gifted. Right now, the latter is just a redirect to Gifted (disambiguation), so it possible that there might be support to move this to that title. But, again, leaving it at The Gifted (TV series) is not an acceptable outcome because of the existence of the 2018 Thai series... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
INCDAB only talks about redirects, it has nothing to do with this discussion. And I still see no proof that there is anything wrong with these "primary subtopics". However, I really don't have the time or energy to continue this argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"When a more specific title is still ambiguous, but not enough so to call for double disambiguation, it should redirect back to the main disambiguation page (or a section of it)." That is exactly the situation with The Gifted (TV series) – the current title is "still ambiguous", so it needs to redirect back to Gifted (disambiguation). This article needs to be moved to The Gifted (U.S. TV series) to fully disambiguate it from The Gifted (Thai TV series). There is no provision anywhere under WP:AT for "primary subtopics" and WP:RM discussions have shown over and over and over again that there is no support for doing so. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose AFD the Thai article based on the lack of notability and sources, and hold the RM to see if the article deletes (yes, this sort of behaviour has been done before), and if it does, we therefore keep the article as it is. -- AlexTW 17:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is little to suggest that the Thai show doesn't meet WP:TVSHOW – the article currently has three Thai-language sources (noting the show premiered last month) which doesn't suggest a lack of notability. Opposing this RM on the basis of an WP:AfD that is likely not going to come (I notice that you didn't file one) strikes me as highly inappropriate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:28, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done it. Isn't there something against replying to everyone who opposes something you suggest? I recall being told off myself a number of times. Anyways, I'm not overly phased about it, I've just put my opinion across as I think it. -- AlexTW 02:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Series to be continued for a third season?[edit]

I haven't heard if this show will have a third season or not (which is probably not a good sign), but that is the kind of info I come to Wikipedia to find out, so it would be great if that info could be included in the article. I really liked the show; it's one of about half-a-dozen I record on DVR. The focus on characterization is excellent, but if I have a fairly minor complaint, it's that the show almost overdoes a good thing. Relationships drive psychological interest, but this is a show about mutants with unusual abilities, and the show probably could have focused a bit more time demonstrating that aspect of the characters. Overall, I think the show did well in this regard, but people tend to expect some "flash" with shows like this, so a little more would probably help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.8.29.142 (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, April 2, 2019, there is currently no news about the series getting renewed for a third season yet. We don't include speculations on Wikipedia. — YoungForever(talk) 01:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The terrible ratings and the Fox network not owning the series anymore would suggest certain doom. Please also remember that talkpages aren't forums and topics like this aren't appropriate. These pages are for discussing issues directly linked to the article. Esuka (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Gifted_(American_TV_series)&oldid=1205838125"