Talk:The Hexer (TV series)
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 14 January 2020[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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Second is moved, first is no-consensus. So putting a disambiguation page at the base name for the time being. This will also allow incoming links to be sorted out by the disambiguation team. Going forward, discussions can be held regarding the possible merge that SMcC mentions below, and there is no prejudice against a further RM to propose the first move again, with fresh evidence, once the dust has settled. — Amakuru (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and perhaps WP:Common sense. The "film" is just a mash-up of clips from the TV series, rather like the Battlestar Galacitica movie that was made up of scenes from the first season of that [original] TV series. Honestly, just merging the film into the TV series article, at The Hexer, as a section would also be an appropriate possibility. While before the current The Witcher TV series on Netflix, the film might maybe have had a primary-topic claim, in that various English-language movie sites mentioned the film more often than non-Polish sites talked about the full TV series, today there's more material out there about the original TV series, including in-depth comparisons of The Hexer to Netflix's The Witcher, and they generally agree the film isn't worth watching or covering in any detail, since it's just a poor edit of the original series. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose first, support second per WP:NOPRIMARY - Though each has its debatable merits, I don't see a strong case that either of them is primary. I'd prefer to disambiguate all to avoid any potential confusion. -- Netoholic @ 12:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, that seems to argue we have a NOPRIMARY case any time a major work and a summary/abridgement of it are both notable (as stand-alone articles, versus simply "not a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE failure" and thus worth mentioning in an article). I'm pretty sure we'd virtually always side with the complete work being the primary topic, and I used the Battlestar Galactica example for a reason (see below about the parallels). That said, I'm having difficulty coming up with other examples, because all the potential ones that come to mind are either covered at the same article anyway (such merging or disinterest in splitting being strong evidence in support of the more-complete work being the primary topic), or have distinct titles for their separate articles, or the short version isn't actually notable by itself at all. In the end, I think it may actually be best to merge the "film" into the the TV series as a section, since sources that are reliable enough to provide real coverage, and well-researched enough to even know there was a Polish TV series and a derived Polish movie, generally treat them together in the same material. I would agree that coverage is pretty close to evenly split, numerically (as judged from Google News searches, etc.), but that isn't the only concern to apply. Even if we retain separate articles, the main concern for us when it comes to PRIMARYTOPIC is lasting encyclopedic importance (despite a recent-ish RM habit of using iffy statistics in place of careful reasoning). The significance is clearly going to adhere almost entirely to the series, which has been reviewed in-depth as having several strengths over the Netflix series despite its low budget for effects, while pretty much no review of any kind of the "film" has said it is worth watching for any reason. Indeed, many of the source mentions of it at all are simply to inject humor and mockery through passing mention, not actually providing any form of in-depth coverage, and this is more true in 2019+ material than in old material that related the old series/film only to the original novels and the video games. I.e., there is a real-world critical consensus that the original TV series is worth considering but that the "film" is worthless and so confusingly edited as to be almost unwatchable. That, in turn, may cast doubt on it being independently notable at all.
The only thing approaching a counter-example I can think of would be if we had separate articles on the complete ten-volume edition and the abridged one-volume summary of The Golden Bough. The single-volume abridgement can probably be found in any good bookstore, and is frequently read by college students and such, while the complete version is out-of-print, costs around US$300–400 on the used market, was mostly only ever bought by libraries, and has in its exceedingly obtuse and rambling entirely has only been read by a few academics. Regardless, we still just have a single article. (And it might be permissible not to, per Das Kapital versus Das Kapital, Volume I, etc. – we can have multiple articles on a huge work when encyclopedically warranted. Das Kapital isn't a parallel case, though, since we're spinning out articles by volume not by complete versus summarized version; it's more like spun-out season and episode articles for a TV series).
The Battlestar Galactica case is more parallel in all ways, except in not being a problem for WP titling because the BG "film" has non-ambiguous alternative titles for us to use (including the original "Saga of a Star World", which we chose, and various marketing titles like Battlestar Galactica: The Movie, and Battlestar Galactica: The Motion Picture). However – and this seems contextually quite important – we are treating it primarily as an episode (or three-episode serial, depending on release format/market) of the first season, not primarily as an independent film. That is, even as a notable stand-alone topic that can support having its own separate article, the TV series still remains the primary topic. The similarities seem too close to ignore: in both the BG case and The Hexer case, the "film" was released in advance of the full series in an attempt to generate buzz and to quickly recoup some of the series development costs. The only real difference seems to be that the theatrical The Hexer drew from more than 1–3 episodes of its parent series, and that seems to be a meaningless distinction.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hmm, that seems to argue we have a NOPRIMARY case any time a major work and a summary/abridgement of it are both notable (as stand-alone articles, versus simply "not a WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE failure" and thus worth mentioning in an article). I'm pretty sure we'd virtually always side with the complete work being the primary topic, and I used the Battlestar Galactica example for a reason (see below about the parallels). That said, I'm having difficulty coming up with other examples, because all the potential ones that come to mind are either covered at the same article anyway (such merging or disinterest in splitting being strong evidence in support of the more-complete work being the primary topic), or have distinct titles for their separate articles, or the short version isn't actually notable by itself at all. In the end, I think it may actually be best to merge the "film" into the the TV series as a section, since sources that are reliable enough to provide real coverage, and well-researched enough to even know there was a Polish TV series and a derived Polish movie, generally treat them together in the same material. I would agree that coverage is pretty close to evenly split, numerically (as judged from Google News searches, etc.), but that isn't the only concern to apply. Even if we retain separate articles, the main concern for us when it comes to PRIMARYTOPIC is lasting encyclopedic importance (despite a recent-ish RM habit of using iffy statistics in place of careful reasoning). The significance is clearly going to adhere almost entirely to the series, which has been reviewed in-depth as having several strengths over the Netflix series despite its low budget for effects, while pretty much no review of any kind of the "film" has said it is worth watching for any reason. Indeed, many of the source mentions of it at all are simply to inject humor and mockery through passing mention, not actually providing any form of in-depth coverage, and this is more true in 2019+ material than in old material that related the old series/film only to the original novels and the video games. I.e., there is a real-world critical consensus that the original TV series is worth considering but that the "film" is worthless and so confusingly edited as to be almost unwatchable. That, in turn, may cast doubt on it being independently notable at all.
- 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.