Talk:Wentworth (TV series)

Cast section
I take issue with the cast section being split into two separate sections and taking on two completely different layout styles. I think it would be best to merge into one section and decide to use either a table or list layout throughout. I also am not keen on bothering to include coloured fields to point out regular, recurring status or not present at all. Rain  the 1  22:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. I am not a fan of the table at all and have noticed it creeping in to quite a few Aussie TV articles. I think two lists would be good. - JuneGloom    Talk  22:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the list. I notice it was changed by an ignorant editor. They never reply to talk page concerns. So it is unlikely they will break their years of silence here. They made undiscussed changes. So I will change it back. Rain  the 1  23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that might be wise, though perhaps mention they can come to the talk page and discuss the changes in your edit summary. Just in case they want to break the years of silence. - JuneGloom    Talk  12:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I am also taking issue with another aspect of this section. How do we know who is a regular and recurring character now? It appears to only follow those mentioned in the opening credits or the first selection on the end credits. I think everyone mentioned here are regular characters?  Rain  the 1  22:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Title Picture
It looks like that title picture has been taken from the US series aired on SOHO. Sween64 (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Accolades - TV Choice Awards 2014
I removed the TV Choice Award 2014 entry in the accolade table because it was marked as pending, and the award was subsequently won by Game of Thrones. My edit was reverted by JuneGloom07 with the comment Even if it was won by another show, Wentworth was still nominated for it & the article should reflect that. This, I would agree with, if in fact it was supported by the source provided. It is not. The source gives the winners but not the nominees. I did some checking and found that the nominees for Best International Show 2014 were; The Big Bang Theory, Game Of Thrones, Modern Family and The Walking Dead. Wentworth was not nominated according to these sources, and therefore I have again removed the table entry pending the provision of a reliable source. Poltair (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this was changed again. If the show was nominated for the TV Choice Award 2014 it must be supported by a reliable source. The reference given did not support that, and these sources: &  still say that the nominees were as above (The Big Bang Theory, Game Of Thrones, Modern Family and The Walking Dead). Poltair (talk) 07:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the content should only be removed after a discussion has taken place. It has not yet happened as no one replied but I am replying. As I said on my talk page. There were originally more nominees for the award. The second round of voting made a more compact selection as is usual at these things. Wentworth was included, assume good faith that my track record on here speaks for itself. The information is true but we now must find a source that can prove it again. The source which the URL's path changes is now not of use. But there could be an archived version, a cached one. The other possibility is the magazine itself which included a full list of nominations. There is always a solution. Rain  the 1  10:17, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that is not correct at all. Any unsourced info may be removed from wikipedia without waiting for a discussion. That's a standard policy all editors should be aware of (it should also be simple common sense). I have removed the info as there is no source confirming it. I'd also like to point out that "the info is true because I remember it and voted" is not a source (as I've seen in the edit history). Everything I've said can be confirmed by reading the opening of Verifiability (however, I would recommend reading the whole page).Cebr1979 (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The information was sourced and not unsourced. So I was aware of that policy which is why I added a source with it. Originally the information was there when I cited the source for the information provided. I am sure others checked it at the time as it only came under question once the content had changed following the awards ceremony. You should assume good faith, I am an editor who has always enforced WP:V and WP:OR. Since you suggest I read up Wikipedia's rules and regulations, perhaps you might like to read up on Link rot. You removed content that cited a source just because it no longer supported the information. The opening statement reads: "Do not merely delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer." To avoid the problem this year I have done the sensible thing and purchased the magazine itself as the information will be better preserved and no one can start an arguement. Rain  the 1  16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe the issue here is semantic rather than sourcing. Wentworth was longlisted for the award and not included in the shortlist of nominees. Whether being longlisted can be referred to as nominated is a semantic argument. Just use the term Longlisted. SPACKlick (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good solution, and if anyone wants an archive of the page, see here. -- Orduin  Discuss 23:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Orduin for finding that archive page. It really illustrates my point. This is a long list of international shows that the public were invited to choose from to narrow the field down to four nominees. None of the other shows that did not make it to the list of nominees mention this award in any way: 24: Live Another Day does not mention being on this list, nor does List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_The_Americans, nor Arrow_(TV_series), nor Bates_Motel_(TV_series), nor The_Blacklist_(TV_series), nor Bones_(TV_series), nor Borgen_(TV_series), nor The_Bridge_(2013_TV_series), nor Castle_(TV_series), nor Elementary_(TV_series), nor Fargo_(TV_series), nor The_Following, Girls_(TV_series), nor The_Good_Wife, nor List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Grey%27s_Anatomy, nor Hannibal_(TV_series), nor List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Homeland, nor List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit, nor List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Mad_Men, nor Nashville_(2012_TV_series), nor NCIS_(TV_series), nor Ray_Donovan, nor The_Returned, nor Revenge_(TV_series), nor Scandal_(TV_series), and neither does True_Detective_(TV_series). In the US, where the People's Choice award is a much bigger deal than in the UK, only shows that make it to the shortlist of four "nominees" ever have this accolade mentioned on their wikipedia entries. As a result of this research I still maintain that simply being on a long list of choices to become a nominee does not belong in the list of accolades in this article. Poltair (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can tell from your reply that you feel strongly on this subject Poltair. I am sorry if you felt that you could not reply to my earlier replies. I think it was because British press named them nominations. But looking now other outlets call it a longlist too. They are split, we have been split but I think we can reach a solution. Would it be okay if we did go with user Spacklick's suggestion of referring to it as "longlisted" to address your concern? Thank you to Orduin too for providing an archive link to verify the information was originally there. Rain  the 1  16:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not see the value of including in a list of accolades, something that is not an accolade. All it illustrates is that the show failed to achieve enough votes to be shortlisted. How does that enhance the article? Poltair (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No it shows it was considered important/influential/good/worthwhile enough to be long listed. The longlist doesn't list every possible show in a category. SPACKlick (talk) 11:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the longlist does not list every possible show in a category. It is a selection of shows that the people could select from in order to arrive at the people's choice shortlist. The award is the People's Choice award, not the editor's choice award. How the candidates for the longlist were selected is not clear. It maybe that they were those thought by the editorial team to be important/influential/good/worthwhile enough, it might be based on viewing figures, or numerous other possible selection criteria. We are not privy to that process. Poltair (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why does it matter? Considering the number of television shows on air it made it on the list of nominations. Had every single international show broadcast in the United Kingdom been put forward then it would be different. This made it onto a list of nominations other shows did not. I would like it added still as long listed. Rain  the 1  18:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

What era
In "Think Inside The Box" Frankie references Superman II which came out in 1980.

The series Prisoner began in 1979... Is this a subtle way of indicating that Wentworth happens in the 1980s too?

Does anyone recall any reference to what year it is in any episodes? Or any modern events or technology?

One thing that comes to mind is one episode uses a drone to film a riot. I don't think that was feasible in even the 90s so it is a good argument for it being more recent.

Any other modern tech or year references that give us ideas of what decade this remake is set in? ScratchMarshall (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Home media
Three large tables listing the DVD releases around the world seems excessive. Is there a way to condense this section to maybe one table? The format used by Veep looks good. - JuneGloom07    Talk  20:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hatnote for non-qualified redirected term

 * (This follows on from this discussion with . As it isn't about the article per se, someone may wish to suggest a more appropriate venue. Regardless, I want it held neutral ground, rather than the talk page of the person I'm in dispute with).

'''tl;dr version - Hatnote keeps being cut down because "(TV series)" qualifier in the article's title supposedly renders most of it unnecessary. However, the hatnote in question is a redirect one, and it's the unqualified redirected term Wentworth Prison that's being disambiguated, not the article title.'''

To cut a long story short, I came across this page and noticed a hatnote I remembered adding to had been cut down.

A quick search of the history showed this edit. No explanation or justification for what appeared to be removal of legitimate content and degradation of functionality. So, I left a message on the talk page of the editor (AlexTheWhovian) and restored the full hatnote.

This was subsequently reverted by Alex with "Unnecessary mass disambiguation when this page is already disambiguated as "(TV series)" - if there needs to be a disambiguation page, create one and don't use this page for that purpose."

Yes- I *am* well aware that for pages with qualifiers in the title, the main dab- if needed at all- should only include items at risk of confusion with that specific case. 'However, that's not'' what was being disambiguated! The redirect template makes perfectly clear that it refers to a redirected term- Wentworth Prison- which in this case *wasn't qualified at all''', i.e.:-
 * "Wentworth Prison" redirects here. For Wentworth Detention Centre in the related series "Prisoner" [etc]...

I restored the full hatnote including the explanation that "as clearly indicated, the hatnote is for the *redirected* term "Wentworth Prison". It will be noted that this is *not* qualified as a "TV series"."

Alex's response? He undid the restoration (again) simply stating that "The disputed content has been removed, so you need to either gain WP:CONSENSUS or create a valid disambiguation page."

No acknowledgement of the point made (whether or not he agrees with it). Instead of defending his argument, we simply get something that comes across (to me) as a dubious attempt to invoke our consensus guidelines as a tool for Wikilawyering.

I don't think this is a "consensus" issue- it seems fairly straightforward- but I don't intend wasting time with an edit war, so I'd appreciate some third party feedback on this anyway. Ubcule (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * One other thing; I realise that the long hatnote would be better replaced with a Wentworth Prison or Wentworth Prison (disambiguation) dab page, and will possibly do that once this matter is resolved. However, that isn't the point being disputed above- the redirect dab was (and is) legitimate until it's replaced with something better. If Alex wanted to remove the content, the onus was on *him* to create the dab page, not the rest of us. Ubcule (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Secondary issues
Some might say my original comment on Alex's talk page could have been more diplomatically phrased, and they might be right.

However, generally speaking, we warn users who remove apparently good content without explanation that this (emphasis) may be considered vandalism. (Note that this still assumes good faith). That's what I did here, even if such notices are more often directed towards newcomers and my tone was a little more impatient than it might have been.

Yes, I can see that Alex isn't a "newcomer" (moreso in hindsight). But frankly, if you're not going to bother writing an edit summary- something I'd have expected in a case like this from an experienced user- I'll treat it as it appears and not waste *my* time gauging which level to pitch it at.

Also:-

You said that
 * "It's also amusing how you linked the only removal without a summary, from May, instead of the one with a summary earlier this month."

That's because I did a quick and dirty (manual) binary search of the article history to spot where the change was made; that edit was the first I found. Simple as that; were you insinuating something else?

(If you got any actual "amusement" from this non-incident, this says more about you than it does me).


 * "I recommend continuing with accusing regular editors as vandals, see which administrator's board you find yourself on."

I recommend not using the "administrator's boards" as an excuse to make sarcastic and barely-veiled threats unless you've got a legitimate case you're prepared to follow through.

Ubcule (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I was going to respond in a civil manner, but with your blatant impatient-ness, you decided to make this an RFC without starting any form of proper dispute discussion whatsoever. Have at that what you will; I guess that this says more about you than it does me. --  Alex TW 22:46, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If I were impatient, I wouldn't have waited a day before deciding how to respond.
 * The RFC was called for two distinct reasons (hence the separate sections above). Firstly, to attempt to clarify the technical issues (re: the hatnote), but also to get outsider feedback on the personal ones.
 * You already chose to make an issue of CONSENSUS, so you can hardly complain that I called an RFC to get more feedback(!)
 * Going by the tone of the response on your talk page- "I recommend continuing with accusing regular editors as vandals, see which administrator's board you find yourself on", I already doubted it was possible to resolve this civilly without getting outside feedback, especially as you didn't bother acknowledging what I'd said when you made the most recent reversion.
 * I certainly didn't intend having the discussion on non-neutral territory where you were able to delete or edit parts you didn't like (as with this- admittedly minor- edit).
 * Finally, I had intended leaving a brief comment on your talk page explaining why I'd moved the discussion here, but you replied before I got to that.
 * Ubcule (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You were impatient, and you clearly have no intent to discuss, especially after senseless and baseless vandalism accusations. How exceptionally uncivil and bad faith of you. I don't expect this RFC to follow through anyways; it's a wall of text of complaints and no clear cut question, hence failing the basic requirements for an RFC. Outsider opinions is what WP:3O is for, and article talk pages are the place for neutral discussions to be held before an RFC. Good luck, you'll need it. Cheerio. --  Alex TW 23:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't play sanctimonious with me; as I said, it was already obvious from your talk page that discussing it civilly on a one-to-one basis wasn't going to work. Your desire for the RFC to fail now makes clear that you're not- and never were- arguing in good faith.
 * I was spot-on that it was already getting too personal; the issue that triggered this has receded to irrelevance (and you never did bother to justify your wonky logic).
 * "How exceptionally uncivil and bad faith of you."
 * Ugh. That's a peculiarly unpleasant combination of holier-than-thouness- from the same person that brought us barely-veiled threats on his talk page- with a transparently clunky attempt to paint me as the non-AGF one.
 * Ubcule (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You assumed that it wasn't going to work, but I am allowed to add and remove what I will to my talk page. However, if you'd started it here, I would have been happy to thrash it out. It's funny how you assume bad faith in people, and then expect everyone to view you as an all-rightious god who is never wrong. But we digress; we should comment on content, not contributors. --  Alex TW 00:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't recall ever making out I was perfect or "all-righteous" myself. I already said above that my original comment was probably less than diplomatic.
 * "I am allowed to add and remove what I will to my talk page". Precisely- as I already said, that's exactly why I wasn't prepared to continue the conversation there in the light of your response (veiled threat followed by some vague insinuation) and moved it.
 * Why was it started there? Because it began as a semi-canned notice regarding unexplained removal intended for you personally. End of story. Ubcule (talk) 19:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not continuing it there is fine, but don't lie - you didn't move it, you didn't create another discussion, you went straight down the RFC path. You had no intention in discussing this like a bunch of real editors. --  Alex TW 22:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The issue
It has taken me a little while to understand the issue here. It seems to me that the problem arises because Wentworth Prison redirects here rather than goes to disambiguation. I think the best solution would be to create Wentworth Prison (disambiguation); that would help those trying to find the former prison in New South Wales in particular, which has become a bit isolated. The other alternative is to disambiguate at Wentworth, which is already a disambiguation page. Poltair (talk) 07:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm not sure why the editor who started this "RFC" didn't decide to do that in the first place. --  Alex TW 08:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply Alex. Just to be clear, do you favour the creation of Wentworth Prison (disambiguation), or disambiguating at Wentworth? Poltair (talk) 08:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wentworth would probably be sufficient. Looking at the disambiguation pages listed here: "For Wentworth Detention Centre in the related series "Prisoner", see Prisoner (TV series)" - this could probably be added to the Other or Arts and entertainment sections; "For the former prison in New South Wales, see Wentworth Gaol" - Places in Australia; "For the Outlander television episode, see Wentworth Prison (Outlander)" - Arts and entertainment. --  Alex TW 08:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution.
 * I'm in agreement with the dab page idea (primarily because I already suggested this...!). Something like "Wentworth Prison redirects here. This is about the 2013 TV series. For other uses, see Wentworth." would be fine. Or Wentworth Prison could go to the dab page (provided that links via it were updated where necessary).
 * , since you ask "I'm not sure why the editor who started this "RFC" didn't decide to do that in the first place"...
 * The original problem was that you kept removing hatnote content for reasons that didn't apply to the hatnote in question! Even after this was explained clearly- and simply- in an edit summary you either ignored that or still didn't get it.
 * Assuming good faith, I'm not sure what the problem was here.
 * It didn't make sense to make changes that may have been reverted by you until this was sorted.
 * Ubcule (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply.
 * Do we have agreement that we disambiguate at Wentworth as Alex suggests in this section above, and leave a hatnote here as per Ubcule, also above? Seems ok to me. Poltair (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * as long as the existing dab page is updated clearly, I'm fine with that. Ubcule (talk) 20:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So this pointless RFC can be closed? See? All that was needed was a 3O. --  Alex TW 22:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have made the changes as agreed above. Hopefully we are all happy with the outcome. Can I ask, as the initiator, to remove the rfc tag if you are happy that the matter has been settled. Thanks everyone. Poltair (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have made the changes as agreed above. Hopefully we are all happy with the outcome. Can I ask, as the initiator, to remove the rfc tag if you are happy that the matter has been settled. Thanks everyone. Poltair (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)