Talk:Vigil (TV series)

Active versus passive voice
My edit to the article has been reverted with the edit note "Using the passive voice rather than the active is not an improvement". I find this odd since I'm pretty sure I changed it from passive to active.


 * Active: The cat sat on the mat (actor, verb, target)


 * Passive: The mat was sat on by the cat. (target, verb, actor)


 * The police and brought into conflict with the Royal Navy and security services (Actor, verb, target) ..... with extra details following.

A bunch of extra details, which bring the police into conflict with the RN and MI5. (Target, verb, actor).

The series is almost entirely about the police investigation, the sinking and death are catalysts. (Hohum @ ) 18:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Hohum @ ) "the police are brought" (your wording) is passive voice; "bring the police" (previous and current wording) is active voice. Headhitter (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, perhaps it's the "are brought into conflict" passive verb usage. (Hohum @ ) 19:02, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This leaves us with both options being passive IMO. The main actors are the police, RN and MI5, yet they are mentioned last. (Hohum @ ) 19:10, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether the actors are passive or not, it's about grammar. "Bring" is active, "brought" is passive. See the Wikipedia entry on Active voice. There is no use of the passive voice in this version: This version also describes the episode chronologically; the conflict between the police and the Royal Navy happens later in the episode, and the conflict with MI5 even later than that. Headhitter (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (Hohum @ ) I've now expanded and reworked the plot section. Any better? Headhitter (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. (Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 15:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) Thank you. Headhitter (talk) 15:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Crits
The article at present suggests that the show has won golden opinions. I would just point out here that the show is quite obviously stupid and ridiculous, embodying the considerable contempt for the audience felt by the kind of privileged people who made it, and that this has not gone entirely unnoticed by reliable sources. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2021/09/19/vigil-episode-5-review-laughable-submarine-drama-truly-plumbing/ Khamba Tendal (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT, with due weight. (<b style="color: Green;">Hohum</b> <sup style="color: Red;">@ ) 14:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Is something fictional in a fictional setting?
Eboshakey - the issue with your edits is that you're stating that something is fictional within an already established fictional setting. So you're effectively saying that within the universe of Vigil that Wudyan, the drones and the Vigil itself - all are fictional, ie don't actually exist. This is quite obviously not the case within the universe that Vigil is set in.

All items marked as fictional are treated as real in the show, and as X201 points out - nowhere else on Wiki is it necessary to point this out:


 * Luke Skywalker doesn't blow up the fictional Death Star
 * Martin Brody doesn't need a bigger fictional boat
 * Graeme Willy and Clive Gollings don't meet the fictional alien Paul

It's possible to come up with more and more farcical examples - but the Death Star is a good one, because the opening text of the Death Star article states - and this is appropriate use of the term fictional as it's an out-of-universe description. However, the Star Wars article itself describes the Death Star as - again appropriate because in the Star Wars universe, the Death Star does exactly that.

Examples of where using the term fictional is acceptable would be Captain Proton in Star Trek: Voyager - Captain Proton isn't real in that the characters in Voyager know he's a fictional person, and The Itchy & Scratchy Show - which is a fictional TV show within The Simpsons. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Chaheel Riens


 * In the absence of a better solution I suggest it should stay, at least until better wording to clarify that the series is entirely fictional - not even loosely based on reality.
 * In terms of the prose I do have a slight problem with calling each element fictional myself (it looks somewhat messy on the page - a work in progress), but it's the best compromise I can see so far - that is without better wording for elements of the description in the first paragraph. I also have a problem with merely calling this programme "police procedural". In the UK we have dramatisations of real police procedural events surrounding real crimes. Of course we also have many entirely fictional police dramas, these don't really have political aims though, at least beyond painting the police in a positive light - IOW the police we would like to have rather than anything rooted in our reality.


 * The first series of Vigil arguably had an anti nuclear defence agenda through fearmongering - it even had at least one anti nuclear activist advisors. Vigil in both series blurs the lines between absolute obvious fantasy fiction and a political attack on possible real or implied weaknesses in the real defence system. At least this agenda was obvious in the more fantastical Dr Strangelove (an excellent movie FWIW).
 * The second series featured completely fantastical sci-fi drone technology that completely ignored the laws of physics - but importantly they could still look real to many viewers (unlike obvious fantasy technology as per Star Wars) and demonise domestic drone users. The drones here resembled domestic and commercial drones rather than the large military drones that would be required to carry that amount of firepower and armour in real life.


 * You mention Star Wars - no such distinction is needed for such pure escapist fantasy. Neither is it needed for soap opera, romance fiction and so on. No one is under the impression that George Lucas was attempting to make a serious political point or expose some possible dark reality regarding a real weapon of mass destruction in the death star! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eboshakey (talk • contribs) 22:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It is already perfectly clear that it's fictional. The very first line of the article says:  .  Both "police procedural" and (after I just added it in) "drama series" are linked.  I also don't think you fully understand what "police procedural" means - again from the target article:    It doesn't matter what they are investigating, just the process that they follow when they are investigating.
 * There is no difference between the Death Star, the drones, the toilet shootout in True Lies (where Aziz fires off hundreds of rounds yet never needs to reload), or and of the highly unlikely scenarios that regularly occur in Friends. (Actually - that reminds me of another fiction-within-fiction:  Dr Drake Remoray is a fictional doctor within a fictional TV show, so we'd need to clarify that.)  It's fictional.  This is exactly why suspension of belief exists.
 * I'm also curious as to your statement of - why not?  Many completely unrealistic scenarios are present in Soap Operas.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional, I'm once again removing the terms fictional, as looking through the article history it's clear that your additions have been contested, and you have been asked to justify your inclusions on the talk page - which you haven't done until now. Broadly speaking the BRD part of the discussion is over the inclusion of the extra terms "fictional", not their exclusion.  There is also a slight whiff of WP:SOAPBOX about some of your edits above especially with regard to the nuclear deterrent aspect of series 1.  Vigil is not a documentary, nor is there any indication, allusion or likelihood that it will be taken for anything other than what it is - a British police procedural television drama series created by Tom Edge and produced by World Productions, as stated in the lede.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Chaheel Riens

I don't know why you didn't state you found the solution I was after yourself with the reference to gone with the wind? Ironically I nearly did this before just putting fictional as I thought another user would object.


 * Sorry to say your argument is still remarkably weak yet repeated.
 * I suspect you know full well this is not merely a fantastical drama with no political agendas. Little more to be said - you found a solution today. I know it's not a documentary obviously.

As for soapbox - oh the irony:
 * https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/anti-nuclear-snp-councillor-paid-to-give-technical-advice-for-vigil-3388533

https://www.esquire.com/uk/latest-news/a37396240/vigil-creator-tom-edge-on-the-terrifying-truth-behind-his-bbc-submarine-thriller/ Because of problems with the layout I'm just just outdenting and restarting here. For the record, I am happy with the current version omitting the word "fictional". It didn't work at all for me, sorry. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Eboshakey, a few comments and requests:
 * If you're going to ping me, please spell my name correctly - Riens, not Reins - I didn't know you'd replied until I saw a ping from another editor above.
 * I'm not sure that you understand irony either. What do those articles have to do with adding (or removing) the term "fictional" from an already established fictional TV show?
 * Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with agendas - political or not, although I note that the reception section already covers that the SNP councillor was involved in the production, so not sure of your angle there.
 * What reference to Gone with the Wind? I confess I don't know what you mean by that.
 * You seem to be deviating away from the issue at hand which is why do we need to specify "fictional" in an already established fictional environment. This is not a political issue.
 * Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Chaheel Riens

My apology for spelling your name incorrectly. I've already accepted your alternative solution (with the image of the poster of Gone With The Wind in your own link) as stated - note I didn't edit that element again. Beyond that I can see we are not going to agree, so I don't want to wind you up.