User talk:Windrifter2

Hi

I noticed that you have added Forces of Nature to the list of BBC Natural History Filmography. Do you think that other series that are centred on science rather than nature should be added to the main list, or would it be better to insert a new table? Bivaldian (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello,

That's a question I often ask myself when I encounter new series. For these, I visit the bbc.co.uk page and reference their categorization at the bottom of the page to determine if it falls in the scope of covering natural history. For this specific program, they mark it as Factual -> Science & Nature -> Nature & Environment. I don't know the best way to categorize things which are more ambiguous, but still touch on natural history. I sent the BBC an email last year asking if they had a reference archive or API we could use, but they never responded. I'm still learning to decipher their URL code and if that can help clear up ambiguity (the 8-character alphanumeric at the end of a program's URL that either starts with a 'b', 'm', or 'p'. For example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07k7m4z)

Do you know if the BBC has a science equivalent of the NHU? If it is a separate entity, then it make sense to have it as its own wiki page. But if they exist and are a subdivision within the NHU, then it certainly makes sense to create a separate table dedicated to science-focused documentaries.

Another area of ambiguity, which I think you're addressing, is when a program has multiple series, but each new series doesn't get a separate title, and certainly doesn't seem to count as "long-running". Tribes, Predators, & Me is a perfect example of something with multiple series which should stay under one title, whereas Planet Earth & Planet Earth II deservedly get their own entry in the table. At what length do you think we should consider something to fall into the long-running category versus that standard category?

Wiki never notified me of a query you posted on the NHU filmography page, or else I would have responded last August. I have a copy of Oak Tree that is two 48-minute-long episodes, which was why I had moved the sections. Episode 1 covers August to February and concludes with "Next time...". Episode 2 covers March to August. I went back to the BBC page to see how they have it there, and you're right, it's just the one 90 minute special. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --Windrifter2 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and like you have said, they don't seem to differentiate between the nature programmes and the ones that focus more on physics and chemistry. I don't think there is a right or wrong way to do it, I'm happy to follow your lead and stay in line with what you put in the table. As far as I can tell, the BBC puts a programme like' The Planets' or 'Wonders of the Universe' in the same category as nature films like 'Blue Planet' or Planet Earth.' But although they are classified in the same type of programme, I'm not sure if they fit in with the nature programmes currently in the table.

When it comes to multiple series, I tend to think of something like 'Springwatch' or 'Natural World' as belonging in the table, which is long running and has new episodes every year. Some of the series in the table, such as 'Miracle Orphans' only had six episodes, so I don't think that counts as long running. 'Microworlds' had twelve episodes that were released in two batches of six episodes within six months of each other, so again it doesn't seem right to call that long running, but if you think differently then I'll just leave it as it is. Bivaldian (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

If that's the case, regarding BBC categorization, I think it's probably best if we keep this with a primarily Earthly nature focused. While there are some programmes we've listed that seem to focus more on the science-side, I think the core of the nature part still exists in those particular programmes. And for as long as that holds true, I think that seems to be a good marker post. So when the BBC makes something that breaks this categorization, we may have to revisit this thought.

I generally agree with your assessment on the long running series. When I began contributing, I was following along someone else's grouping that didn't quite make sense to me. Given the nature of BBC programming and the lengths/number of episodes a series has as compared to American television, I'm inclined to say that we mark the cut at >2 series. So if a programme has >2 series we mark that as a long-running programme. If it's shorter, then we either group them, or in the case the second series is called with a "II" in its title, we leave them as separate instances. Does this seem reasonable? --Windrifter2 (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes that should work and solve the problems. There are two series which are returning for a second series, Serengeti and Animals with Cameras. My understanding is that Serengeti is being billed as Serengeti II in the same way Planet Earth and Blue Planet are, while Animals with Cameras is simply being listed as a second series of the original.Bivaldian (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)