Talk:Beyond (American TV series)

Full-heading for notes
First, what was quoted was a guideline, not a policy. Many people are under the impression that guidelines are some ultimately binding top-down rules that must be followed. They're not. See WP:BURO. Policies, on the other hand, should be followed, yes. No disagreements there, but this isn't a policy. In any case, exceptions to guidelines can be made if the result is more beneficial than the "official" way. Like here. From discussing it with, it makes no sense to have an actual heading for the note when the note is only a single idea. If there were more notes tied to the episode table here, for example, an actual heading would be better. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 20:54, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging as well.


 * Guidelines should be followed unless there's a good reason not to. You've said "the result is more beneficial than the 'official' way" but you've given no supporting evidence as to why other than you and another editor like it better that way. Two editors' opinions, no matter how extensive or recent their contributions to an article, do not constitute consensus. (Similarly, this applies to your recent discussion on what the two of you arbitrarily feel is the correct number of episode appearances for a cast member to rank as "Recurring" at Famous in Love. Some people believe any number more than 1 is enough. My personal bar is not quite that low but I would say 2 to 4 should be enough, given there were only 10 episodes in the season. IIRC, the MOS:TVCAST section links it to storyline relevance; it's certainly nothing to do with how long or short the list of recurring cast would be at a variety of episode count cutoffs.)


 * In this particular case, though, the guideline against pseudo-headings is that they reduce accessibility because they screw things up for screen readers. Given accessibility is a worthwhile goal (as is, I would argue, consistently structuring/formatting one's data) and has pretty broad support across the encyclopedia, I think you would have to have a really strong reason to ignore this particular guideline. I believe this reasoning also applies to arbitrarily formatting a single sentence as a 1-item list... there's no structural reason for that sentence (The entire first season was released on digital platforms, such as OnDemand, the Freeform App and website, and Hulu, on January 2, 2017.) to be a list item and its formatting as such would also screw things up for screen readers. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, so neither myself nor was really aware of the accessibility component and therefore agree that the actual headings are needed. As for the bullet point, I still consider that to be a note and am still for it, but will leave it alone for now. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 15:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Let's be clear
I find it extremely hard to assume good faith about your frequent reverts. It feels like you don't get that you don't own this article (and a few others) because it's funny how every time someone disagrees with you, you revert their change (often multiple times) and then suggest the onus is on them to come to the Talk page and justify it. How about instead you come to the Talk page and argue for why you believe a change warrants reversion before you go ahead and do it? Because it feels very much like an uneven playing field if the expectation is that everyone else has to spend their valuable time convincing you a change you disagree with is warranted whereas when you make a change, it's fait accompli necessary, no questions asked, just do it.

The changes made don't need to be justified by either him or me: you're the person who has reverted them twice. But in the interest of bending over backwards to accommodate your request, here goes: it's nothing to do with the sources being scientific journals or not—it's that the changes made add information to the citations and give it more structure, whereas your reverts make the citations less useful (or rather, you're dis-improving them). I feel like if, after someone's made a change you've then reverted, someone else comes along and says, "Actually no, I think that's an improvement", the onus should be on you to "go to the Talk page" and argue for why you feel the original version is superior... before you just wipe out their work.

I've never seen anyone claim that using |first= and |last= parameters is only for the citation of scientific journals. This is an encyclopedia—a certain degree of formality is expected (which is probably why, when the template "knows" which name is an author's first and which is their last, it lists them "Last_name, First_name"). But how the template cite happens to present an article author's name is an immaterial red herring: we "go by the sources" in terms of the content of the articles; there's no such requirement to cite a source's author in a particular format. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:CITEVAR and WP:CITESTYLE backs Joey here. FWIW, Amaury is quoting me in the example above – for articles such as this, it makes far more sense to do "author name" style (to follow the predominant author style used at all the available sourcing from press sources, etc.) than to do "last, first" author style. But that's neither here nor there – in general, the original author style used for refs at an article should be maintained (ditto date formats, though that issue is often a lot muddier because of the tools editors use to add refs on Wikipedia, and because of WP:DATETIES). And this article's first sourcing used "last, first" ref author style – so that shouldn't have been changed unless their was a consensus to change it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah! So looks like I misinterpreted or misunderstood what you said back then. In that case, I would have no problem changing it back if that's the case—similar to date formats. Just needed to be pointed to those. Joey, you should know that in all of the interactions that we've had thus far, there's never been anything personal—I have nothing against you—so please don't make accusations like that without any solid proof. In some of the other "issues" that had come up, things weren't completely on your "side." Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:USA
Regarding recent edits where I tried to bring the article in line with MOS:USA, "has been the standard" is not the same as a MOS guideline. "U.S." is clearly deprecated for "US" (not just at Wikipedia) and the wording in this article unambiguously includes a case of what the guideline specifically refers to avoiding, which is to say the use of "U.S." in the same article (and even the same sentence) as a country name that is more standardly abbreviated, "UK". Seems pretty clear to me. I don't think there's any danger someone who understands "U.S. viewers" won't understand "US viewers". —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been "deprecated" without consensus. The person that did that was a UK-based editor who ignored a recent RfC on the subject that showed no consensus to deprecate "U.S." (and, you know – WP:ENGVAR). So, no – personally, I don't care about "consistency" ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...") – "U.S." is the correct form for U.S.-related articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 December 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: all moved, per consensus. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

– As per several recent RM precedents (e.g. Eve (U.S. TV series), Street Legal (Canadian TV series), Bodyguard (UK TV series), Committed (Canadian TV series), etc.), under WP:NCTV it is generally more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to disambiguate TV shows with the same title from different nations with "by country" disambiguation, rather than with "by year" disambiguation, especially when it involves TV shows from 3 or more different countries, which is the situation here. Additionally, the 2005 Canadian TV show Beyond was a "TV program" under WP:NCTV, not a "TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Beyond (2017 TV series) → Beyond (U.S. TV series)
 * Beyond (2012 TV series) → Beyond (Singaporean TV series)
 * Beyond (2005 TV series) → Beyond (Canadian TV program)
 * Support per nom and as has been reaffirmed in multiple RMs lately, that the country of origin is a better indicator then a year. One note though, the Canadian one might be a series (as the last episode of the season says it's a conclusion of the season), but I can't find sources online that talk about it to figure this out. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Neither by-year or by-country disambiguation style is preferred under NCTV. IJBall is pushing a personal preference for country disambiguation rather than explaining why this set of articles would better benefit from one method over the other.  Beyond (2017 TV series) has aired in multiple countries, including Canada, meaning the proposed change adds ambiguity where today there is no evidence of such (the proposed by-country destinations are currently redlinks).  Beyond (2005 TV series) is properly a series, as the final episode in each season is a recap/update of sorts, meaning that the narrative sequential order is relevant.  Status quo is the clearest arrangement of this set of articles. No objection to creating by-country redirects. -- Netoholic @  19:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I call "B.S." – I am not "pushing a personal preference": I am pointing out a general preference that has been shown by the precedent of multiple RM discussions established over months (and it's really been over years). The fact that one editor objects to such precedents doesn't make the consensus established by these precedents any less valid. I'm sorry Netoholic – but on this issue, you are the only one who is objecting to the logic of disambiguating "by country" when doing see is clearly both the most WP:RECOGNIZABLE and the most WP:PRECISE method of disambiguation. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. No, a TV program airing the equivalent of a "clip show" at the end of every season doesn't suddenly make it a "TV series" under WP:NCTV – shows without real continuing narrative elements are not "TV series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 08:12, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * You are making the classic mistake (or perhaps tactic) of the RM process in that you are filling out your RM rationale by cherry-picking recent RMs which fit your particular preference rather than actually discussing the merits with respect to this set of articles on their own. The 2017 series is both produced in Canada (Vancouver) AND prominently airs on Canadian television, you are adding ambiguity by trying to create an unrelated Beyond (Canadian TV program) - that is incomplete disambiguation.  But you are so focused on what happened in other RMs which have their own individual and specific concerns - and focused on trying to insult and isolate my viewpoint - that you are failing the task of this RM. -- Netoholic @  11:41, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As you well know, that's not what determines "country of origin" — that is determined by who puts up the money for the series, and the 2017 series was funded by the American Freeform channel, which makes it American. We've been over this – many U.S. TV series are actually filmed in Canada, with a significant amount of Canadian acting and behind the line talent, but that doesn't make them "Canadian TV series", because the Americans still put up (most of) the money to fund the series. That is how we've always done this in WP:TV/WP:NCTV (as well as in WP:FILM). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, much like how shows like Game of Thrones & Into the Badlands are filmed in Ireland funded with American money, or Counterpart in Germany & LA for example. American companies do this for the tax incentives on offer which make locations more attractive. Esuka (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Amaury ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support all - agree that disambiguation by country is more reader-friendly than start date, especially in cases where there is no overlap between countries of origin. Also agree that the Canadian 2005 show better fits "program" than "series" - episodes stand on their own in isolation, unlike the other two which better fit "series". -- Whats new?(talk) 12:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - The Canadian show doesn't look like a scripted series to me. Television shows that are more research/interview related don't fall under those lines right? They have no actors, they're just people specialized in each field researching or discussing a subject. If anything that's unscripted. Esuka (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2019 (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.