Jump to content

Talk:Good Omens (TV series)

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

Miniseries or TV series?

[edit]

Anyone else want to weight in on whether the page should be titled Good Omens (miniseries) or Good Omens (TV series). I lean to miniseries but the argument made by Woodensuperman about the term not being used in the UK was fairly convincing. However, the miniseries is a co-production between Amazon (an American company) and the BBC (a British company). Also, most pages for miniseries use the term instead of TV series though I'm not sure if there is a specific policy regarding this. Anyways, I'm curious to see what others think. I'd be fine either way. – BoogerD (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would prefer TV series (as I had created it). We don't actually know that the series will end after six episodes, considering that Pratchett and Gaiman planned to write a sequel and thus Gaiman might get roped into creating more episodes. Regards SoWhy 17:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, another decent point. I didn't know that and I would assume that it is entirely possible if the show proves successful enough. I was just going by the articles I read when I created the production section of the article. – BoogerD (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCTV allows for the disambiguator "(miniseries)", but does specify that we should take into account usage in the originating country, so we shouldn't use it for UK series. I don't really see common usage of "serial" either. It is also problematic as there is some debate as to what is and what isn't a miniseries. There are such things as "event series" and "limited series". I prefer "(TV series)" because whether it is a miniseries, serial, or whatever, it is still a TV series. I'd like to see the usage of "(miniseries)" deprecated from the NC. Maybe I'll start an RFC... --woodensuperman 09:49, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (miniseries) isn't something we should assign lightly just because we think a show fits that general format. Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, we should first see how the reliable sources are describing it and then apply the most apt disambiguator per WP:NCTV. One source does use the the term "miniseries" in an early paragraph and "series" later, but the rest of the sources use either "series" or "limited series". I'd say for now that (TV series) fits what we know about it the most. Feel free to persue the WP:Requested moves process if you like. -- Netoholic @ 13:16, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Series is a miniseries, as sourced by ten separate sources. -- /Alex/21 04:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Despite it being called a "miniseries" in sources, it does not actually fit the definition of the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries" called for by WP:NCTV. It is a better fit to the definition of limited or event series, which are disambiguated by "(TV series)". This is exactly why there have been multiple calls for the deprecation of the unnecessary use of "(miniseries)" as a disambiguator (as we did with "(telenovela)"), when "(TV series)" is a good catch-all. --woodensuperman 08:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, Alex 21's WP:REFBOMB aside, the term miniseries is not the most widely used:
    Going by Google News hits, "TV series" or "series" is far often used in reliable sources than "miniseries", including Vanity Fair, Polygon, The Wrap and Radio Times. So I strongly advocate keeping the current title and also fixing the now misleading lede. Regards SoWhy 09:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that SoWhy - have corrected lede. This is why we need to stop using "miniseries". This wouldn't be as much of a problem if we just disambiguated everything by "TV series". --woodensuperman 09:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woodensuperman, I have reverted your removal of sourced and sourced content. If anything, it should be reverted to the status quo with the initial three sources. I have a feeling we've had the same discussion at Les Misérables (2018 miniseries), but here we are again, discussing your personal interpretation of the word "miniseries", against WP:NCTV. I'll start an RM sometime later today. Remember that, concerning your initial comment, this is not a UK series. It is a co-production, and hence that reasoning is invalid. -- /Alex/21 10:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the analysis by SoWhy above? --woodensuperman 10:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do. Google Hits alone is a poor excuse of an "analysis" and is exceptionally far from being any form of conclusive. As I said, I'll start an RM sometime later today, and it can be discussed by involved and uninvolved editors there. Do you remember our discussion about Les Mis? I do. I believe it'll end the same way. -- /Alex/21 10:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. --woodensuperman 11:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have revoked the page mover permissions of both Alex 21 and Woodensuperman. Any further move warring will result in a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a fan of 'miniseries' because it's so alien to the UK, and both Pratchett and Gaiman are British (I'd prefer 'serial'). However if we have to have the Aemricanism in here, at least 'miniseries' has the WP convention, as narrowly used as that might be, that it's a bounded set of episodes; correctly the opposite of how WP uses 'TV series'. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The WP article for “miniseries” makes clear that this is a term used in some territories only. As such it should surely only be applied in the article title for productions from those particular geographies? “TV series” as disambiguation is understood worldwide and therefore generally preferable MapReader (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that this is not a British series, creators are irrelevant. It is a co-production between Britain and the US. And it's that the usage for British series has clearly never been an issue before:

-- /Alex/21 02:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has it even been confirmed that there will be no further seasons and that these six episodes are all we'll ever likely see? I know like with Miracle Workers plenty of outlets called it a "Limited series or Miniseries" until TBS decided to renew for a second season and revealed it would be an anthology leaving it open for many more seasons with the same cast. The same happened with The Sinner too. These days networks & studios seem to keep their intentions as a closely guarded secret and spring random renewals for shows you'd never expect(though the ratings may say otherwise) to come back. Esuka (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a novel. It's notable as a collaboration, and that one of the authors is now dead. So that's not insurmountable to the horrors of Hollywood, but it's a pretty good reason that it's a bounded series. Certainly to the point where WP should name on the basis that it is, and only deal with an exception to this if and when it arises. We are more likely to see sequels toHis Dark Materials or Mortal Engines than to Good Omens. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment, yes. We list Wikipedia articles for series as they exist at the moment. Right now, it's a once-off miniseries. If it gets renewed, then we list it as such; until them, assuming the possibility of a second season is CRYSTAL. Both The Sinner and Miracle Workers were listed as concluded once their first seasons were over, and then they were updated to an ongoing status once they were renewed. -- /Alex/21 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there has been recent press indicating Gaiman has changed his mind and is open to producing more episodes. See for example this article.
Thankyou to the both of you for explaining how things work for things like this. It sounds like the page should be moved to "miniseries" in its title and if it happens to get renewed, as mentioned, it can always be updated. Esuka (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and characters list

[edit]

There needs to be an established threshold for what is included in this list. NOT EVERY CHARACTER/ACTOR NEEDS TO BE ON THIS LIST!!! Right now, I am setting a non-objective baseline from just the end credits (whether a person was in each episode) and intro credits (the people deemed most important; varies each episode). From there, I will determine a range for "main", "recurring", and "guest" cast/characters. For now, if the character only appears in one episode and is not listed in the intro credits, DO NOT ADD THEM. Otherwise, PLEASE DO NOT ADD UNTIL I'VE SET THIS BASELINE!!! --Afong10 (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So here is the non-objective criteria I set:

  • +1 for appearing in an episode (listed in the end credits)
  • +1 for appearing in the intro credits
  • Up to 2 points can be given per episode.

TOTALS:

  • Main cast = 10 or above
  • Recurring = 5–9 (3-9 if mentioned in intro credits)
  • Guests = 3-4 (min. 2 if mentioned in intro credits)

All other NOTABLE people should be listed in the prose format below the lists. --Afong10 (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It makes some sense to have criteria for inclusion on the cast list, because there are so many characters that we only glimpse for a few seconds. Still, I suggest that the threshold should consider time on screen and the importance of the character to the unfolding of the story, not just the total number of mentions in the credits. For example the character Agnes Nutter (played by Josie Lawrence) who appears only in one episode is a character of significance to the plot and is mentioned frequently in subsequent episodes. If that doesn't qualify for the Guest list, perhaps we need a catch-all ... perhaps a list of "Other Appearances" after the Guest list, which would keep the main lists uncluttered, while still providing factual information for completionists and the detail-oriented among us. Turtlecom (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One editor cannot overrule the MoS; no consensus has been displayed for such a system, and thus the MoS must be applied to, as it must be with every other series. I adjusted credits for first three episodes per MOS:TVCAST, by listing cast credited as starring each episode with newly credited cast added to the end of the list, sticking to the guidelines as set by WP:TV. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:TVCAST does indeed prescribe that, however, it can be overwritten by local consensus if needed. I do agree that this needs to be objective. People listed in the intro credits should appear in the cast list while those only listed in the end credits should be treated as guest stars per MOS and only be mentioned within the episode's entry if they are notable. Regards SoWhy 12:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No local consensus is shown here; there is one editor, determining their own set of rules with no support and posting all in caps to declare that it must not be changed. The updated cast listing should be reinstated per the MOS, and the above editor should argue their case and find that local consensus if they find it necessary. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 10:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this cast list needs some system of organization to make it manageable. The series features a lot of roles that are small featured roles and oversized cameos; the problem with MOS:TVCAST is it's largely based on how American shows organize their credits. This mini doesn't fit the guidelines, so we need to find a workable solution. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions would be beneficial. A number of other series have functioning systems that use a separate section for actors that are credited as main cast for a single episode, being "featured" actors, such as The Crown. This system should be adapted to a list displayed through an implementation MOS:TVCAST's guidelines first, so that the cast list can abide by both the guideline and the "featured" system, rather than some generic that the first editor created, a "bonus points baseline" system that resembles something similar to a card game where actors win points. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've relocated Pollution up into main cast to fit with the rest of the Horsemen and as per order of appearance. Looking through here it seems there wasn't actually any consensus to use - or more importantly to adhere to - this weird points system and in fact there has been some quite vocal criticism of it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petition

[edit]

The petition is notable, being covered by many reliable news sources and attracting reaction from the series writer and showrunner. It should certainly be included. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Has the petition had any effect on the series? You have not fully explained your revert either. 120.20.139.89 (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on coverage to date, the campaign is ongoing. Notability is not limited to the effect a petition has; the rather amusing error re: Netflix v. Amazon and subsequent response adds to it. Please refrain from any further reverts; you’re over 3RR via your various IPs. Any further will result in a request for page protection. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 09:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It takes two to edit-war, I recommend you follow the same suggestion. "Amusing" is irrelevant. Please state a policy or guideline that supports its inclusion. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What part of it, exactly? And if your only issue is with the petition, why revert the whole edit? 115.64.238.117 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG should cover it nicely. It is something that is related to the series and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. It's irrelevant why this coverage was initiated, just that it exists and there is plenty of it (and still being generated). Some more examples are Wired and The Telegraph. Regards SoWhy 12:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I can recognize the consensus. I'll restore just the cast updates without removing the petition, then. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 July 2019

[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: no consensus . numerically this is about even, and the arguments on both sides are about the same strength in my reading. This has already been relisted twice, so it is unlikely a third relisting will generate a clearer consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Omens (TV series) → Good Omens (miniseries) – The series is reliable sourced as a miniseries, in no less than ten separate sources:

  • [1]: Good Omens: miniseries (2019)
  • [2]: Amazon's Good Omens miniseries Review
  • [3]: Neil Gaiman’s six-part Amazon miniseries about an odd couple at the end of the world is an acquired taste.
  • [4]: displays the best part of the six-episode miniseries based on the book of the same name
  • [5]: before watching the six-episode miniseries on Amazon Prime Video
  • [6]: that the miniseries would be headed up by David Tennant and Michael Sheen
  • [7]: is unique among the miniseries’ six, tightly-packed episodes
  • [8]: 'Good Omens' Costume Designer Reveals How Keith Richards Influenced Amazon miniseries' Looks
  • [9]: about Amazon’s new “Good Omens” miniseries
  • [10]: the end of this solid miniseries adaptation of Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett’s novel

Arguments have been made that "miniseries" is not a term used in British English; this is not solely a British series, it is a British-American co-production, so it should accept terms used by American English, terminology that is listed and clearly supported by WP:NCTV. The use of "miniseries" in British English articles has clearly never been an issue, as shown by a list of no less than 76 articles that refer to British series and are disambiguated as miniseries: -- /Alex/21 03:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 18:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Despite it being called a "miniseries" in the selective sources above, it does not actually fit the definition of the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries" called for by WP:NCTV. It does not even fit to our own definition of miniseries (which notes: "to designate one-season shows that are not intended for being renewed for additional seasons, the broadcast and television industry came up with terms like "limited series" or "event series""). It is a better fit to our own definition of limited or event series, which are disambiguated by our own WP:NCTV as "(TV series)": "Episodic, serial, or limited series television shows are made of episodes which may relate part of an unfolding story, feature recurring settings or characters, or express a unifying narrative theme. These shows are typically aired only part of the year, and are produced as a set or cycle of episodes usually called a "season" or a "series". When disambiguation is required, use (TV series)". This is exactly why there have been multiple calls for the deprecation of the unnecessary use of "(miniseries)" as a disambiguator (as we did with "(telenovela)"), when "(TV series)" is a good catch-all. Note the findings of SoWhy in the section above where he has found 33,000+ hits for "TV series" without "miniseries". --woodensuperman 08:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That seems to be your definition. It certainly matches the definition used by the 76 articles listed above that are in an identical situation. We had an identical issue at Talk:Les Misérables (2018 miniseries)#Requested move 12 December 2018, another British miniseries, where there were unanimous agreement that it was a miniseries. Concerning "our definitions", Wikipedia articles should not be used to support definitions; articles are not guidelines, and should be used in only a extremely minimal capacity of support. Ever wonder why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source? Same situation here.
    You've mentioned several times about how miniseries has been called to be deprecated, and yet, here we are, years later, with it still in acceptable use. It's not being deprecated. As for the last sentence, I won't repeat about Google being a source for a third time. -- /Alex/21 09:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of those are also misnamed. Also see Category:BBC television miniseries and note how few of those are disambiguated with "(miniseries)". The problem is that there is no exact definition of "miniseries" and it is open to interpretation. This problem could easily go away if we just start using "TV series" for everything. After all, they are all TV series, whether mini, limited, or not. --woodensuperman 09:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your opinion. How is it that "there is no exact definition of "miniseries" and it is open to interpretation"? You've been citing the definition of a miniseries for months as definitive. Why the sudden change? The fact remains that those articles are titled as miniseries, without any issue. Because they are miniseries. Your statement that miniseries is not a term used in the UK has been proven wrong, by both usage and sources. I'll say it again: miniseries as a disambiguator is not being deprecated, as much as you hope it will. But by all means, keep hoping that every issue "could easily go away". We could disambiguate everything with (television) to further remove any disambiguation at all, but that's not going to happen either. Now, back on topic? We are not here to discuss its usage as a disambiguator. We are here to discuss its usage as a disambiguator here. -- /Alex/21 09:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It seems to fit all the criteria for a "miniseries". If it gets renewed it can always be updated. Esuka (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The question of whether the series will return is too murky to go with a more limited term such as miniseries or limited series. The series was initially promoted as a limited series, but more recently, Amazon and Neil Gaiman have indicated they are open to more episodes, given there is a sequel that Gaiman and Terry Patchett outlined and but were not able to complete. TV series is adequate, and is well understood. I have also collapsed the needlessly lengthy lists of series that fit the miniseries criterion. Such temperamental micro-agressions make navigation difficult and serve as a deterrent to discussion. Interested editors can review the lists, and the rest of us are spared endless scrolling through them. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's open to it returning, yes, but has it actually been confirmed that he and Amazon will be producing more episodes? I don't believe so, and so until then, assuming that he might is WP:CRYSTAL. "Open to" is not the same as "will", and hence the series should be listed in its current state, not a possible state. Stephen King is open to doing a sequel to 11.22.63, but he hasn't confirmed it yet, and hence the series is still listed as a miniseries. Same situation. Also, please do not collapse other editor's contributions without their permission, thank you. -- /Alex/21 01:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has been announced from Amazon regarding the future of the series, and I believe for things like this they have the final word and not the creator. The problem here though is that with shows like this they're not restricted by a schedule and are free to take all the time in the world to make their mind up(Within reason..). So we could find that they say absolutely nothing and everyone moves on to other work. Esuka (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible oppose as per Woodensuperman – the current definition of "miniseries" is effectively meaningless (it meant something 30 years ago, but not now...), as the distinction between "miniseries" and "limited series" has pretty much vanished. As a result, I agree with Woodensuperman that WP:NCTV should actually eliminate the use of "miniseries" for disambiguation purposes. So the current proposal will make a bad situation worse. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a difference between miniseries and limited series. Shows that are often labelled as a miniseries are only ever intended to be one and done type shows while limited series is just a marketing term to describe a series with a shortened episode count that could return. So many people mistake limited series as a series only ever intended to be a single season, rather than its actual meaning regarding episode count. Countless shows that have been labeled as limited series have been renewed while few that have been promoted as miniseries are. Esuka (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's honestly somewhat funny to think that "miniseries" isn't supported because "the current definition of "miniseries" is effectively meaningless" based on a definition of 30 years ago (i.e. the 1980's), but "TV series" is supported. Was this in any way released on TV during its initial release? If not, was it at least released on some sort of weekly schedule? No? It's far from being any sort of "television" series. In fact, it's more identical to Con Man (web series) or Vixen (web series), both of which are disambiguated as "web series". This is a web series. Even Daredevil (TV series) has the right idea: "Marvel's Daredevil, or simply Daredevil, is an American web television series". Several comments have been made about how "TV series" is a catch-all for all shows; that definition is definitely one that belongs in the 80's, as web series that are released over a streaming service, especially those released all at once, are most definitely not an '80's-definition TV series. I'm not seeing how this article is different to any of the articles linked in the initial RM post, which shows that there has never been a use with the term "miniseries". It's been requested to be phased out so often, but it's never happened, and likely never will. -- /Alex/21 09:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you got it – "TV series" is a more general "disambiguator", which means it applies to more TV shows (including shows that are now "streamed" rather than "broadcast"). OTOH, "miniseries" is now a meaningless term – so Woodensuperman has got it right: we should deprecate use of "miniseries" as a disambiguator under NCTV and replace it with "TV series" (which all of these definitely also are). If in doing so, further disambiguation is needed in the case of some of these, "by country" or "by year" disambiguation will do the trick easily... In any case, I'll oppose any further moves of articles from "TV series" to "miniseries" – doing so at this point is a horrible precedent. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not. Thousands of articles are disambiguated incorrectly, because they are titled as a "television series" when they have nothing to do with television. We might as well title this article as "Good Omens (book-based series)", because it was a series based on a book. Sounds ridiculous, right? Exactly the same as titling articles as "television series" when they have nothing to do with television. If this RM fails, I'll file another RM to title it as "web series", then proceed to NCTV to deprecate "TV series" as a disambiguator for articles that have nothing to do with TV and make streaming series disambiguted correctly - I think that'll be something that needs outside views, so somewhere like the village pump may be best. -- /Alex/21 02:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support miniseries, but no need for the refbomb in the lede which just confuses readers. This show is referred to as a "miniseries" more frequently in reliable sources as best I can tell, and that should predominate over Wikipedia-internal theorycrafting over what exactly counts as a TV series and what doesn't. Just follow the sources. SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - TV series is greatly preferable to miniseries, which is scarcely English. Oculi (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Miniseries is a vaguely defined term which has different meanings to different people. TV series is standard and understood by all. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

All of your sources are US ones, I believe. As an international encyclopaedia, have you looked at how this series is described in the rest of the world? MapReader (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, so here's a matching number of UK-based sites that all refer to Good Omens as a miniseries:
  • [11] The fans will be beside themselves. Good Omens, the six-part miniseries on Amazon’s Prime Video
  • [12] is a six-part miniseries which has been very hotly anticipated.
  • [13] Although each of the six episodes in the miniseries are focused
  • [14] TV miniseries review: Good Omens (Amazon Prime, 2019), directed by Douglas Mackinnon
  • [15] the 2019 miniseries adapted from the 1990 novel by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett
  • [16] With trailers out for the new TV miniseries
  • [17] because the world needs more tightly-constructed, over-and-done miniseries
  • [18] And the TV miniseries, a six-episode co-production
  • [19] Television miniseries adaptation of Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's fantasy novel
  • [20] will adapt Good Omens into a “comedic apocalyptic” miniseries
-- /Alex/21 06:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at those that editors would consider reliable sources, it does seem that the term "miniseries" is now in wider use than when originally coined. I don't have any objection to its use here. I would however suggest that it would be worth doing a bit of work on the Miniseries article to see if sources can offer a more specific definition that can be used within WP. A descriptor used for disambiguation does itself need to be relatively unambiguous. MapReader (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are literally thousands of sources that do not use miniseries. --woodensuperman 08:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Google by itself is not considered a reliable source, just as page hits on Wikipedia are not considered a reliable source on how popular an article is or if it's a primary topic. Same concept. -- /Alex/21 09:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the articles it throws up are reliable sources. Thousands of them. --woodensuperman 09:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then cite those thousands of reliable articles that specifically state "Good Omens is not a miniseries". Exclusion of the word does not mean exclusion of the genre. Correlation does not imply causation. -- /Alex/21 09:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is miniseries a genre? We certainly do not disambiguate TV series by genre. --woodensuperman 09:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You understand what I mean. Stop nit-picking and try to stay on topic. Cite those thousands of reliable articles that specifically state "Good Omens is not a miniseries". Unless you cannot? Again: Exclusion of the word does not mean exclusion of the format. Better? Correlation does not imply causation. Try to keep up. -- /Alex/21 09:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You really need to stop being so fucking condescending. --woodensuperman 09:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must ask that you please try to remain civil during discussions; swearing will not get you anywhere, I'm afraid. I am awaiting your reliable sources; I have provided twenty of my own. -- /Alex/21 09:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you would do us all a favour if you would kindly step back for a while and wait for a broader range of views? MapReader (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So regarding the term limited series, is it really worth mentioning here that in almost every case a limited series has always been renewed on cable with great ratings or canceled and later coined as "one and done" by the TV media to avoid the obvious excuse that the ratings were awful? The term itself is quite clearly for PR purposes. This is why I find it quite odd that it should be used over miniseries on this article. Esuka (talk) 21:36, 13 July 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.

BBC2 Premier

[edit]

As I don't see it (remaining) as a reference, but seeing that someone added in the latest info from another source a few days ago, just dropping the link https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000dbdy here as probably the definitive current information for future showings (and, in the future future, a perpetual record of its original showing). Make of it whatever a regular wikeditor does, if you're one and feel like it. 62.31.138.5 (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that; I've added the link to the article. -- /Alex/21 22:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American format, British series?

[edit]

If this is a British series (per the article itself), then why does the article use {{Use mdy dates}}, and use American formats such as "season" instead of "series"? -- Alex_21 TALK 09:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to British date formats and the use of "series" over "season", per the above. -- Alex_21 TALK 07:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Season 2 Episode Titles

[edit]

The official Twitter account for Good Omens teased at the new episode titles[21]. Is this a sufficient source, or should we wait for a more standard one like a TV Guide? I don't know how it works usually. CheeseWater6 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The official Twitter is definitely an acceptable source, but do we know for certain these refer to the episode titles? -- Alex_21 TALK 08:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should reorganize the cast listing?

[edit]

There are a large amount of characters in Series 1 who did not return for Series 2, and likewise many characters who first appeared in Series 2. Maybe it would be wise to separate the actors listing by first starring (Tennant and Sheen), then the characters who are relevant in both series (example: Archangels), then the characters who only appear in one season each. Right now the cast listing is extremely disorganized - for example, Adam Young is listed as "starring" although he only appears in Series 1, then the Archangels are listed in different spots of "starring recurring" and "recurring" for whatever reason... Jaguarnik (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct per MOS:TVCAST, we list cast by how they are ordered initially, then add newly-credited cast at the end of the existing list. So even if Adam Young was credited as Starring for Series 1, any newly-credited cast are to be listed after him. -- Alex_21 TALK 08:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Friendship"?

[edit]

I've read thru the premise and it refers to what Aziraphale and Crowley have as a friendship- which is not only innacurate to the first season, is explicitly debunked in the second. According to Neil Gaiman himself, the two are in love and have been since the book was published. I do not see any reason to use the explicitly platonic word "friendship" over a more general one like "relationship". Even in season one, both of the main actors said they played the characters as if they were in love, as intended by the authors. It is, and always has been, a love story. Neil Gaiman rejects the idea that it ever wasn't. So it is very odd to make it seem completely platonic- that takes away so much depth from the series, and makes so sense accounting for all of season two. Alekseis11 (talk) 22:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it refers to what Aziraphale and Crowley have as a friendship- which is not only innacurate to the first season, is explicitly debunked in the second." In season 1, episode 5, Crowley calls Aziraphale his best friend, twice. In season 2, episode 5, he calls Aziraphale his only friend. They are certainly friends in the first season, nor is their friendship debunked in the second season. Friendship is a correct description for their relationship, and in my opinion, phrasing should be clear rather than ambiguous. The show also doesn't explicitly address romantic feelings between the two until the last two episodes of season 2; the description was about season 1. Certainly, one could interpret the feelings between the two in season 1 as romantic, and that is a valid interpretation. But the plot summary talks about things that is explicitly within the show itself. That is why I would prefer the term friendship. It's not as if the kiss in season 2 is ignored by the article. Jaguarnik (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Good_Omens_(TV_series)&oldid=1231582700"