Talk:Legends (TV series)

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

The hatnote[edit]

The current hatnote states: "This article is about 2014 American crime drama. For the Korean TV series, see The Legend (TV series). For the 1995 American science fiction drama, see Legend (TV series)." I honestly do not know how anyone can get Legends (TV series) confused with those two. Also, with this edit, I attempted to remove it, since Legend (disambiguation) leads people to those series and Legends will lead people here, but was reverted. The two listed should not confuse anyone with this series, and this series should not confuse others with any other shows. — Wyliepedia 03:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think too many people are watching this page. Let's have the discussion at WT:TV. I just opened the discussion there.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth take it there? The show just premiered tonight. Give the discussion a chance to develop here. This is one editor trying to force an edit, nothing more. The discussion belongs here. I've reverted the hat note again and restored to status quo when the discussion was opened. It should not have been restored until consensus was reached. --Drmargi (talk) 06:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably an issue for all three of the articles, which all have basically the same hatnote. Also, this is more of a general stylistic issue than an issue about this article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Legend and The Legend might, and I use that word loosely, need disambiguation for each other, but I honestly don't think any confusion will arise, especially since a Wiki-search for Legends leads here. I also don't think people will visit here and wonder about other series. Oh, and a hatnote to Legends would be unnecessary, too. — Wyliepedia 06:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmargi, CAWylie (ec), are you just removing it here and leaving the other two? The three articles should be consistent, IMO. P.S. the reason I put the hatnote up on all three articles was that when I saw the commercial I entered Legend (TV series) in the search bar and was totally confused.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"are you just removing it here and leaving the other two?"  Fixed. Left it at the singular named series, as a compromise. — Wyliepedia 06:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CAWylie If there is a visitor error rational shouldn't Legends (TV series) at least have Legend (TV series) in a hatnote. This type of visitor error is probably bidirectional although far fewer people are looking for the older show.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You basically just answered your own question. While it's understandable someone might leave the "s" off while looking for this modern series, I don't think someone will mistakenly add the "s" to look for the older series. The reason I added it back at the older one was the 250 daily visits over the past week (Legends has had 800 within 24 hours). I would assume they are looking for this one. Again, that was a compromise, and this is my exit from this debate. Others can weigh in. — Wyliepedia 08:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 3-way hatnote is potentially useful on all the three TV series. Given the size of the three dab pages (Legend (disambiguation), Legends, The Legend), I think it's not unlikely that a reader with a half-remembered title will find one of the three TV shows which isn't the one they want and not notice the "See also" entries for the other dab pages. It's much kinder to them to offer navigation to the other 2 TV shows directly. So I'd say keep the hatnotes on all three. We've had a personal account, above, of a Wikipedian going for the wrong title when looking for a show: let's help other readers. Hatnotes are free and useful. PamD 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But that also gets into lengthy hatnotes, which WP:2DABS suggests not doing: "If there are two or three other topics, it is still possible to use a hatnote which lists the other topics explicitly, but if this would require too much text (roughly, if the hatnote would extend well over one line on a standard page), then it is better to create a disambiguation page and refer only to that." At this point, I really don't care. Lengthy disambiguation pages were created for that reason. If someone who types in "Legend" for this now-highly publicized series and can't find it from there, that's their problem. I've been reverted in the past for similar-sounding TV show dabs, hence, my not caring about operator error. — Wyliepedia 09:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Wylie. I can see the point of having the hatnote on the other two articles' pages, maybe, but not on this one. How someone would confuse this show with an obscure scifi series, much less South Korean anime is beyond understanding. The hatnote simply isn't needed. --Drmargi (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmargi, Somehow you have made me feel like I must be the stupedist wikipedia user in the world to have confused Legends (TV series) and Legend (TV series) and ended up on the wrong page feeling totally lost without a hatnote to direct me. Confused is probably the wrong word because that would assume that I knew of the existence of both things. You are probably correct that if someone knew of both of them there would be no confusion. But for a person who only knows of one of the two and is looking for the one that he knows about, It is very conceivable that someone looking for Legends (TV series) or Legend (TV series) could stumble to the wrong page. I think the confusion could be bidirectional. Because the disambiguation pages for legend and legends are separate if you are on the wrong page and go to the associated disambiguation page, you may have trouble getting to the other TV series because it is not actually mentioned on the disambiguation page. Although someone looking for The Legend (TV series) might not end up at Legends (TV series) very often, I think someone looking for Legend (TV series) easily could. The associated disambiguation page would not even have the link he is actually looking for. Thus, I feel the hatnote is necessary. Maybe the hatnote should only include Legend (TV series) and not The Legend (TV series) as it did previously, but at least that should be presented to the possibly lost reader. This would address CAWylie's concern about a lengthy hatnote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you make a good case for a hatnote on the article for The Legend, and there's one there. And it was easy enough to add this show to the disambiguation page. Problem solved! --Drmargi (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Problem is not solved. There are two bilateral confusing TV series Legend/Legends and Legend/The Legend. Hatnotes are needed both directions for both of these. Three of the four problems are currently handled. The fourth is from Legends pointing to Legend.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmargi, Note how far backwards you have to bend to pretend you fixed the disambiguation problem. Clearly Legend and Legends have separate disambiguation pages so it makes no sense to have one Legends bullet point among the 57 at Legend (disambiguation). The proper fix is to have bilateral hats for the particular audience that might be served by screwing up the Legend disambiguation by putting one Legends bullet point among the 56 non-Legends bullet points. I have reverted the absolutely senseless addition of one Legends line to the 56 non-Legends lines.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't start personal attacks. — Wyliepedia 07:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you consider me saying his edit was "senseless" any worse than him saying my confusion was "beyond understanding". Why are you only warning me?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
HER! And hardly bending backward. It was a quick, easy and common-sense fix. --Drmargi (talk) 22:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I have been known to get people's gender wrong on WP. I concur that in general adding Legends (TV series) to Legend (disambiguation) might seem like common sense. My initial changes included a similar edit. I was reverted. Now that I see that Legend (disambiguation), Legends (disambiguation), The Legend (disambiguation), and Legendary (disambiguation) all have separate pages, I now understand that it is not correct in this context. Thus the best way to help a reader who ends up at Legend (TV series) while seeking the content of Legends (TV series) is via a hatnote. They will not get help at the dab for Legends (disambiguation) or on the first page of a google search for Legends. Thus, a hatnote is necessary.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:40, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search for "Legends", which an average reader might start their search at. The wiki page for "Legend" is on the first page, but not this nor any of the other series. Neither is the "Legends" wiki page, which is odd as that is what I entered. Typing "Legends tv show" or "series", boom, second listing. As stated, it's operator error if he/she can't find this page, in/outside Wikipedia. If anyone takes offense at that, apologies. But again, this show is now-heavily advertised as it is listed, and is linked at "Legend (TV series)". Disambiguation on this page to the long-past singularly named series or "The Legend", as Drmargi stated, isn't necessary, in my opinion. If votes were counted, they are currently split. — Wyliepedia 01:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, if someone is looking for the show Legend (TV series), but is unaware it does not have an s in the name and ends up at Legends (TV series), he is likely to go to Legends (disambiguation) and the google Legends search without finding any assistance. Thus, the hatnote is necessary.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:37, 15 August 2014 (UT
This is becoming borderline semantic with what belongs at the original disambiguations and, to be quite honest, does not belong here, as this about hatnotes on the articles in question. I would also like to point out that the vote is still split on this, and it appears no one else gives a toss. — Wyliepedia 03:25, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was more than semantics. I believe Drmargi was making the point that the proper corrective action was to cram Legends (TV series) onto the Legend (disambiguation) that it does not belong in. I believe she felt doing that made putting a hat note in Legends (TV series) for Legend (TV series) unnecessary somehow. However, as stated above it the disambiguation pages are separate.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post Legend (disambiguation) merger discussion of hatnote[edit]

Well, despite no resolution on the matter and thus no consensus, the hatnote was still added. — Wyliepedia 03:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to comment on the same thing. I reformatted this as reopening the discussion; hope that's OK, Wylie. I reverted as soon as I saw it. TTT keeps pushing the edit, but has no consensus for it. --Drmargi (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A new talk section is fine. I would like to point out, now that the merge has happened and a hatnote has been placed at Legend, that at the Legend (disambiguation) page the entries there in the Television section now read as follows:
  • Legend (TV series), a science fiction Western television show

[...]

  • Legends (TV series), an American crime drama television series
I honestly do not know how anyone could get further "confused". It might be a hassle to take the extra step to get to the disambiguation page, but welcome to the Wiki-world. — Wyliepedia 04:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of issues here:
    1. Hatnotes are not for people who end up on a page from a disambiguation page. Anyone who ends up on the wrong page from a dab page can pageback and figure out where they want to go. Hatnotes are for people who end up on the wrong page because they navigated from a wikilink to a page that they thought would take them somewhere else. Currently, Legend (TV series) has 61 incoming links and Legends (TV series) has 89 incoming links. That means there are 150 pages on wikipedia that could be phrased and/or piped in a way that makes it difficult for a reader to know whether he is being sent to Legend (TV series) or Legends (TV series). Regardless of whether the pages have seemingly unconfusable subject matter to you, the fact is we are counting on 150 different editors to have grammatically, syntactically and in proper WP MOS phrased/piped and linked these two articles in a way that is unambiguous. How confident are you that all 150 editors have linked and piped these two article correctly? The reason for the hatnote is that if one of the 89 incoming links to Legends (TV series) is not quite grammatically correct, not syntactically correct, or someone is just slightly confused on how to pipe articles someone could end up on Legends (TV series) and want to be at Legend (TV series) but see no immediate answer to why the content is not what he wants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    2. There is the matter of prior discussion which was 2 for TonyTheTiger and PamD including and 2 opposed CAWylie and Drmargi to including the hatnote. However, we have a list of 9 editors who are concerned about Legend disambiguation based on their participation at Talk:Legend_(disambiguation)#Merger proposal. I will open up a vote on the hatnote and request their participation.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I commented below on the reason why 89 articles link here. Legend's numbers are more accurate, except for a few misnomer titles that need redirect fixing. Legends' link will always be exaggerated if a nav box is on it. As for the concern of nine other editors, that is in regards to the disambiguation, not two series. — Wyliepedia 05:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Feel free to comment at Talk:Legend (disambiguation)#Merger proposal.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Call for a vote on hatnote for this page[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Result is support for hatnote as proposed by TonyTheTiger — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2014‎

There has been a lot of contentious editing regarding the {{About|the 2014 American series|the 1995 American science fiction drama|Legend (TV series)}} hatnote on this page which results in a hatnote that says the following: This article is about the 2014 American series. For the 1995 American science fiction drama, see Legend (TV series). Do you support or oppose such a hatnote?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those wondering what all the fuss is about, this and a prior version of a hatnote have now been reverted 4 times on this page: July 30, August 14, September 10 and September 15.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Given that the page has 89 incoming links (only one of which is Legend (disambiguation)), I am not confident that everyone who ends up on this page is not looking for Legend (TV series).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I see no harm in that hatnote on this page – it mirrors the hatnote on Legend (TV series), and will inform those readers who do land here by accident of the other page. —Bruce1eetalk 06:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I see no harm in hatnotes in general, and the two article titles are in fact confusingly similar. But consensus is not a vote, asanother editor has rminded us.--Wetman (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The hatnotes here, and at Legend (TV series), are potentially helpful for readers and should be retained. The whole discussion saga started, if I remember rightly, when an experienced WP editor got to the wrong page by misremembering the title of the series they wanted. Let's continue to help similar readers. PamD 22:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A single "-s" is rather easy to confuse and a hatnote provides a simple unobtrusive means of assistance. older ≠ wiser 23:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hatnotes are cheap. We don't seek consensus to add hatnotes to pages where they might be useful any more than we seek consensus to add dates of birth and death to a biography. bd2412 T 00:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seems likely useful to some readers, with not much downside. Tom Harrison Talk 00:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - same reasons as PamD, Bkonrad, BD2412. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm baffled as to why this is even controversial, as it seems like a textbook use of hatnotes to address potential confusion (the likelihood of which seems fairly high in this instance). I didn't accidentally navigate to the wrong article, but when I first encountered a mention of the new program, I actually did mistake it for the similarly titled 1995 series. —David Levy 00:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support given the current title, although it would make sense to further disambiguate the parenthesis section as Legends (2014 TV series) and Legend (1995 TV series) per WP:PRECISION due to their confusing similarity. Diego (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. I am not convinced most visitors arrive here by accident, nor are looking for a singularly named 1995 series, both of which are listed at Legend (disambiguation), which is a point of origin for most visitors who search for Legends after a redirect and find a hatnote. — Wyliepedia 05:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A person searching for "Legend" or "Legends" would eventually be led to the disambiguation page for "Legends". A hatnote for any of the pages is unnecessary in my opinion. I oppose the hatnote on the top of the page. The titles are distinct enough that a hatnote is not needed. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The WP:SMALLDETAILS policy points out that the title difference is not enough to clearly differentiate them by name alone, and the fact that they both appear at the same disambiguation page is even more proof that they're easily confused. Diego (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Consensus is not a vote. Please review WP:CONSENSUS. --Drmargi (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • Comment. 89? The bulk of those occur due to TNT template at the bottom of the page. You'll notice most have nothing to do with this series and/or page. — Wyliepedia 05:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that so many incoming links exist is immaterial; in any case, the incoming links would link to this article.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am glad that you understand that an incoming link is a link that links to this article, but your understanding of the definition does not make it immaterial. The point is that their are over 40 articles that point here by 40 editors who may or may not be using sufficiently clear grammar, syntax, MOS, wikification and piping to distinguish between Legends (TV series) and Legend (TV series). How confident are you that everyone who clicks on one of those more than 40 links putting them on this page wants to be here rather than at Legend (TV series)?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find your reasoning difficult to understand. I'm sure editors can differentiate between different series. Some of the links relate to TNT; other relate to cast members of the series. I am quite confident. A reader wants to be on this page by virtue of them clicking on a link that leads to this page.David O. Johnson (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I do see a possibly ambiguous situation here, and I wonder if it might be best resolved by a concise hatnote that links to the dab page? such as:
For other uses, see Legend (disambiguation).
Since this hatnote is setup to link directly to the Television section of the dab page, a reader who clicked one of the incoming links and who landed here by mistake would be taken to several other possible choices, one of which would be (hopefully) the one they seek. So rather than to give readers just the suggested two choices, they are given all the TV-series choices. Wouldn't this better ensure that they find the article for which they are looking? – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Paine Ellsworth, This article first became contentious on July 30 when I attempted to add a broader hatnote ( {{About|2014 American crime drama|the Korean TV series|The Legend (TV series)|the 1995 American science fiction drama|Legend (TV series)}) here and corresponding hatnotes on all three relevant pages pointing to the other two articles. Subsequently, editors have come to the agreement that Legend (TV series) and The Legend (TV series) are ambiguous for differing by only the article and Legend (TV series) and Legends (TV series) are ambiguous for differing by only the letter s. However, Legends (TV series) and The Legend (TV series) are too different to require bilateral hatnotes because they differ by two points of confusion. Thus, the hatnote at The Legend (TV series) was eventually reduced to only a single navigation point and its inclusion in the hatnot here is no longer at issue. Yes there are other television series and episodes at Legend_(disambiguation)#Television, but we do not include them all in the hatnote. We assume that the reader is not confused by TV series and episodes when making our hatnote decisions. Also consider guidance at WP:DLINKS regarding primary topic page (Legend (disambiguation) or Legend) and secondary topic pages (Legend (TV series)). We don't point to the primary page from a hatnote on the secondary page when there is only one other topic of confusion. Basically, if we felt that there were several articles that a person ending up on this secondary page might be confused about your suggestion might be appropriate. However, we should not present clarification in a hatnote for this TV series for people who are looking for TV episodes or for things that are more different than one point of confusion, IMO. Hope that helps you make up your mind and contribute to our attempt to build a consensus above.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Not for nothing, but...[edit]

this entire series reminds me of the Anthony LaPaglia film, Chameleon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Song played at climax of season 2 finale[edit]

This is Until We Go Down by Ruelle (singer), which is used as the opening theme of season 1 of The Shannara Chronicles. Is the use of the song notable to mention in the article? Marked out hearing it since watching both shows. This sounds a lot more like the Shannara version than the original one. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 13:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legends (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:42, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Legends (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Legends_(TV_series)&oldid=1201894334"