Talk:Paradox (British TV series)

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

References

Reviews

Walton, James (2009-11-25). "Time-jumping drama fails to foresee its own flaws". The Daily Telegraph. p. 36. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
Sutcliffe, Tom (2009-11-25). "Time scene investigation". The Independent. p. 19. Retrieved 2009-12-04.
Hogan, Phil (2009-11-29). "I have seen the future and it's daft". The Observer. p. Review section, p. 27. Retrieved 2009-12-04.

Interviews

Hendry, Steve (2009-11-22). "Acclaimed star of hit army play is tipped for screen success". Daily Record. pp. 22–23. Retrieved 2009-12-04.

Any ideas as to why this is here ???Chaosdruid (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be used for a section on the critical reception. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Style guidelines. Ottre 22:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

locations

The lead in states about majority of filming in City of Manchester.

I can add a couple of locations, for example Danny's car in episode 2 is parked on King St, Dukinfield (at the junction of King Street and Astley Road)

Any more info on other locations could be added later perhaps as "Other Locations" section?

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode summaries

I don't know why we have to use that single horrible episode table instead of a short summary table and plot sections for more detail, but if we do, there is no point using the long plot summaries in it, it doesn't look right at all, gives zero summary for the casual reader, and is too bad on the eye even to leave permatagged until a wandering gnome fixes it (which is usually never in my experience), so I've replaced with the former short summaries. If anyone wants to expand them, the old (very long) plot info is this version. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 January 2019

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.

Moved. See general agreement below to put a tighter focus in the disambiguation of this title as proposed. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 17:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paradox (TV series) → Paradox (UK TV series) – Needs to be moved for necessary disambiguation from a Georgian-Ukrainian TV series, Paradox (2014 TV series), as per WP:INCDAB. While the latter cannot be easily disambiguated with "by country" disambiguation under WP:NCTV, the particular TV series under discussion can easily be disambiguated with "by country" disambig. as per WP:NCTVUK. Failing that, this can be moved to Paradox (2009 TV series) – at the least, a redirect should be created at this title if this article is moved to Paradox (UK TV series) as proposed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and move instead to Paradox (2009 TV series) - we should not have one article use year and another use country, but rather look at the set of articles and handle them in the same way. As above, its just as easy to create Paradox (UK TV series) as a redirect, and hatnotes atop each article to further clarify for readers. The current title is obviously WP:INCDAB and must change. -- Netoholic @ 00:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There's no "rule" that we can't use "by year" disambig. for one article, and "by country" for another. In fact, when there are multiple TV series from more than one country with the same title, we often have to "mix and match" "by year" and "by country" disambig – The Bridge#Television is just one example of this, but there are others. Bottom line: Disambiguation should be based on what is most WP:RECOGNIZABLE to the reader (whenever possible), not based on some perceived need for "consistency" when such a consistency is neither required nor necessary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - While your principle has merit, you've offered no evidence that either of these series is particularly more recognizable by year OR by country. I think you just assume country is more recognizable in all cases, and so are stating your personal preference. To me, the case seems to be that neither way is more recognizable than the other in any significant way, so we should instead use a consistent approach. Your example of multiple, inconsistently-titles "The Bridge" TV series is a perfect example of how convoluted an inconsistent approach is - that set of articles is mess. -- Netoholic @ 03:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Re: The Bridge, you don't always have the option of doing "one, or the other" – i.e. just "by year", or just "by country" – and there's nothing wrong with that. But, back on point – in general, "by country" disambig. is more recognizable to readers than "by year" is. It's not just me saying this – that's why RM after RM has passed for changing from "by year" to "by country" disambig. There is a general "preference" for "by country" disambig. (whenever possible), as shown across many RM's, which is why I think NCTV should be revised to reflect this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Trying to push such a "preference" is meaningless exactly because there are always exceptions (even you use the phrase "in general"). I notice you aren't pushing for a move to Paradox (Georgian-Ukrainian TV series) in this request, despite your claim that country is preferable. Every set of page titles needs to be evaluated on their own basis for what makes the clearest set of titles. And you shouldn't be trying to hammer countries through just because you perceive that some recent RMS have gone that way (RMs by the way that you have chosen and brought forward exactly because you think the year disambig they were stable at was unclear). Now, stop talking in generalities and get specific about THIS RM and THIS set of articles. -- Netoholic @ 04:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Paradox (UK TV series) - needs disambiguation, country is almost always more recognisable to the average reader. -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Whats new?: - do you then also support moving the other series to Paradox (Georgian-Ukrainian TV series)? -- Netoholic @ 09:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not especially, I don't think it's necessary or relevant. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Either target, the current title fails WP:PRECISE, thus a WP:PDAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - country is in most cases the most recognizable feature, which is the case here also. I also don't oppose Paradox (Georgian-Ukrainian TV series), even if I personally don't like that it's too wordy. --Gonnym (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't propose that as well in this RM for a reason – I'm a firm believer that "by country" disambiguation is fine, or even good, for those TV shows that can be listed with a single-country (e.g. Paradox (Georgian TV series)). However, when that is not the case, as it is with the Georgian-Ukrainian TV series, then "by year" disambiguation is actually preferable (basically as per WP:CONCISE). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you're willing to sacrifice WP:CONSISTENCY for it, making it so one article is country and the other is year. This is so arbitrary and WP:IDONTLIKEIT in your methods. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I've offered arguments for both. You can accept those arguments, or disagree with them, but you cannot claim I have not made them. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Netoholic, it's not much different than arguing against using "US" instead of "U.S." for consistency with "UK" in disambiguation. Not very consistent with your argument for consistency -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.