Talk:Humans (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please don't keep moving cast order around, Smaugh (talk · contribs). William Hurt and Katherine Parkinson are currently the top-billed actors at the moment.

At the beggining, Colin Morgan was in first place, why changing now ? Classify the actors functions of their celebrity is stupid I find ... -- Smaugh (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Going onto a (sort of) linked thought, is it possible that — once episodes have aired — some sort of summary can be added to each episode?

Only I can remember the Wikipedia article about The Fades seemed to be disappointing: in the sheer inconsistency of The approach. Episode 1 got a paragraph: the rest a line.

The same seems to be happening, here.

I’d volunteer for this, myself: except I feel I’d make a guaranteed hash of thing … !

Would anyone be prepared to put in such summaries?

Cuddy2977 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@

The|Whovian

16:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Cuddy2977 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it necessary to put this in on the info box? Never seen a television show info box have the budget, except for like Band of Brothers. Game of Thrones originally cost around 60 million for HBO, but that is put in production, and not in the info box. So is it relevant to have this here? Charlr6 (talk) 13:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes. If there is a source for the budget of a show (which there is with Humans), it can be included in the episode on the article.

By the way, Game of Thrones' budget information is in the Conception and development section because it is a show with multiple seasons and there is far too much detail to put in an infobox. Humans has just one series [so far] and has just one budget. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC) Edited at 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC) by Bilorv.

This should not be present in the infobox, but certainly production. As per

The|Whovian

15:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It is currently categorized as a miniseries. –xeno^talk 17:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's being billed as a limited series (different), though there are already talks of a second season.

The|Whovian

17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't appear that we distinguish miniseries from limited series or event series. –xeno^talk 18:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe

And yes, you have provided no source that all eight episodes have finished production. You supplied a source with a photo. It seems that you have not edited many TV series before - I've edited quite a few myself, and on every single one of them, it gets incremented upon an episode airing. Disagree with me? Take it to the television series infobox talk page. I'd bet my account that editors would agree with this point of view.

The|Whovian

07:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging on the Talk page.

I was somewhat taken aback by your last edit summary comment, "And what on Earth's with putting the table air date elsewhere? Messing around are ya?" I reviewed my edits and saw that I had, in reverting your edits, accidentally restored a minor error by

assume good faith

in future.

The source I gave, [1], states:

"Humans (8 x 60’) is made by Kudos (Utopia, Broadchurch, The Hour) in association with Matador Films (Real Humans) for broadcast on Channel 4 and AMC in 2015." (emphasis added)

That is, it shows there are 8 episodes. Perusing both cites already in the article and additional ones produces...

"The eight-part series is based on the award-winning Swedish sci-fi drama “Real Humans”." [2]

"AMC today announced its new eight-part drama series “Humans” will premiere Sunday, June 28th at 9:00 p.m. ET/PT." [3]

"Premiering later this month from AMC is a new eight-part drama series called HUMANS, co-produced by AMC and British broadcaster Channel 4." [[4]]

Does anyone seriously doubt that there are 8 episodes of this show? There is a theoretical possibility that they will not all be aired, but they clearly exist.

Might I also suggest that you refer to policies, guidelines or other documentation in explaining your edits. Arguing from personal authority is not encouraged on Wikipedia. I recommend the essay

WP:PRIOR

.

I have already referred to the template documentation above and it does not support you. It states, "Value is incremented when new episodes air, or have been produced." (emphasis added). It goes on: "The season parameter should only be incremented once the first episode of that season has aired, or if a reliable source confirms production has commenced." And: "This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production."

That is, it clearly states that the article number need not be based just on what has aired. Similar wording has been in the template since early 2007. It has never, as far as I can see, said that the number can only be incremented on airing.

I would also make reference to

WP:CONSENSUS

. You have reverted the work of multiple different editors; to summarise...

User:Somethingwickedly first added the episode number on creating the article on 10 Jan 2015

You reverted on 31 May: [5]

User:Asher-of-Locksley re-added the episode number on 7 Jun: [6]

You reverted on 8 Jun: [7]

I reverted on 9 Jun at 17:33 with an explanation on the Talk page and sources: [8]

You reverted on 10 Jun at 2:29: [9]

I reverted on 10 Jun at 7:25: [10]

You reverted at 7:33: [11]

User:Luxure then reverted you at 7:42, and then reverted him/herself at 7:43.

If multiple editors add something (Somethingwickedly, Asher-of-Locksley and myself) and one editor keeps taking it away (and I'm unclear on Luxure's position),

WP:CONSENSUS would suggest the multiple editors may have a point. Bondegezou (talk

) 10:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend reading

The|Whovian

13:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"I can't see anything saying that the first aired date cannot be added beforehand" - The template documentation for the first_aired parameter of {{Infobox television}} says Only insert the date after it has happened. That very clearly says that the first aired date cannot be added beforehand. Similarly the documentation for num_episodes says The number of episodes released. This episode parameter should only be incremented when new episodes air or when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production. Even with a source that says episodes have finished production, the parameter is for the number of episodes released. Episodes that have completed production but which haven't aired should not be included. The "when a reliable source can confirm that an episode has finished production" is normally only used when we have a situation where a series finishes mid-season and it is confirmed there are still episodes that haven't been aired. The same applies for num_series. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on "first_aired". Yes, I'd discovered that on re-reading the template documentation after I'd posted my earlier comments above. It seems to me a rather poor design for an infobox to exclude a key piece of information that people will be looking for. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

We can't add a first aired date until the episode has actually aired, can we? People can freely find it after the episode has aired. Regarding the source that you claims supports 8 episodes, yes it does confirm that 8 are planned. However, it does not confirm that 8 have been produced. Whether or not "anyone seriously doubt[s] that there are 8 episodes of this show" is irrelevant. Everything added to Wikipedia must be verifiable and it is not verifiable that all 8 episodes exist. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted

I'm actually a vampire. I don't need to sleep. To answer your other question, the infobox is formatted as shown in the infobox instructions by a cleanup template that I use. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest an approach that would certainly please me as a user of the information in the Infobox? Why not have two values in the Infobox, one that states the number of episodes in the series and one that states the number of episodes shown to date? In the example of Humans, it could then be indicated that there are 8 episodes ordered for the current series (or season, in American parlance) and that as of today, 5 of those episodes have aired? The number of episodes aired could be incremented each time a new episode was shown (presumably in the first market where it was appearing). That would certainly be helpful to me. When I look at the current Infobox, it seems to be implying that there are only 5 episodes in the series (season). Next week, when I look, it will say 6. If I'm recording the series and waiting to watch it in one go when I have the whole series, I won't know that I have the whole thing until such time as the number stops incrementing in the Wikipedia page. Even then, I can't be sure since it may just have been pre-empted for some reason with further episodes yet to come. It would be far more useful to me to know that there are, say, 8 episodes in the series and 5 have already aired.

198.84.215.251 (talk) 14:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Since the way it works here is the way it works across all television articles, you'd need a wider consensus than just on this page to change the way the infobox works. I have no particular problem with this idea, but both of the numbers you're looking for are prominently featured in the article: "5" is in the infobox and "Eight episodes were produced for the series" appears in the lead. So I can't imagine it's a major problem. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The official name of the show is in all caps. See AMC's official website for the show here. Please do not change it to Title Case. The show's name is supposed to be all caps.

That is the way the titlecard writes it. It needs to be listed in standard font. It will have its titlecard style in brackets in the opening paragraph. See Friends for another example. But when it comes to the infobox it needs to stay standard text. Thank You -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 17:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The program also uses an upside-down 'A', so I've updated the article to reflect that. But the article's title and first mention should have normal capitalization. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say to convince you. I work at AMC Networks specifically with metadata for these shows. This is the way the show is supposed to be referred to, in all caps. Just like TURN: Washington's Spies. Beyond the actual AMC website, where this is specified over and over again, the show, HUMANS, in all caps, and beyond me telling you this is correct, what more can I do? I find this frustrating to say the least....

talk

) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Great you work at AMC. But AMC is not Wikipedia. What it is listed on AMC and some commercial is different to the encyclopedic point of view. That might even fall under the category of trivia. It needs to be kept grammarly correct and it even says ( stylised as HUMANS) that is enough for the article imo. Thank you -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. It's like talking to a wall. AMC co-produced the show. This is how the show will be listed in public metadata. But of course you as a Wikipedia editor know better than the co-producer of the show, the creators of the show, etc. Gads, there's just no bending here, is there? And thus continues the Wikipedia problem -- Wikipedia's worst enemies are over-zealous editors. Unreal.

talk

) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, but Wikipedia has various guidelines and stylisations (see

WP:MOS) and this falls under one of them. We don't "know better" than you — we just use different styles. Some sources use curly quotes; Wikipedia has chosen to use straight quotes. Some people like to use mdy dates (e.g. January 1, 1980); this article uses dmy dates (e.g. 1 January 1980). This case is no different: it's just Wikipedia representing a name with a different capitalisation. We've included your stylisation into the article — I even made sure the 'A' is upside-down — but our article title and first use of the phrase is in Standard Title Case. The AMC website doesn't use "(TV series)" either; that's another case of Wikipedia adapting a title for clarity. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e)

21:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I am also sorry you feel this way, but Wikipedia doesn't run like that. Most television programmes I have seen may have their title in capital letters or written a certain way, but wikipedia doesn't follow that. Even box sets of films or TV-series have their logos possibly different to how they appear in the show. In the best way to describe way Wikipedia doesn't do this, it is because it looks messy on a website like this. I do understand fully what you are talking about, and if it were up to me than a previous established wikipedia 'rules' I would say yes, we should. Maybe actually try to copy the official logo of the show to put as the title, instead of just text. But sadly Wiki doesn't work like that. Charlr6 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The|Whovian

00:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of confusion could be saved if we refer to the Manual of style. For instance

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#Typographic_effects gives good guidance on how to deal with the unusual typographic effects adopted to promote this programme. An example given is Alien 3, whose distributors also adopted unusual topography. --TS

00:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I tried. I was civil, but it's a pile on, as usual. It's sad. When it gets to the point of "Wikipedia doesn't do things this way," that's the point when it becomes glaringly obvious that this is not about innovation or responding dynamically to something (a) simple and (b) correct. It's so absurd it's indefensible, but yes, by all means, send me more links to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, etc. Gads.

talk

) 03:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

"Thanks for nothing" is far from civil. If you disagree with the way that Wikipedia is run, perhaps it's not the place for you; stick to AMC? You'll get what you want there.

The|Whovian

03:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

BrillLyle, you should try to understand the purpose of WikipediA’s choice, and wonder why it coincides with those made by THE TIMES, theguardian, Newsweek or 4 (or “Channel 4”, “Channel Four” or “C4”, however it fancies calling itself), to name but a few. Wikipedia, just like most carefully edited publications, has a set of rules regarding typographic effects. Most of these rules follow usage defined by mostly thoughtful tradition and experience, as recorded in books aimed at professionals called style guides; others were tailored over time to this one-of-a-kind beast’s specific demands by the community. Some are so obvious as to not need telling: don’t try to use the same font found in a logo, or the same colour. Some other rules will seem less obvious, or less important, to people not versed in editing matters: how to treat odd characters, capitalization or spacing is an example. These rules ensure clarity to the reader, consistency within the publication, a good overall visual impression, etc. This is actually akin to transliterating when quoting foreign words: for various reasons, and depending on context, Greek or Chinese characters will be reduced to English-reader-friendly letters in English text. This is not perfect science, but when rules have been agreed upon, a strong case is required to break them. The fact that aMC, by using all-caps, did not follow usage in the first place isn’t binding for anybody else. My first sentence, as well as the way I just wrote “AMC”, gives a glimpse of how awkward and tedious (for both editors and readers) bowing to every case-related idiosyncrasy would be.
Moreover, while AMC’s website writes “HUMANS” mostly all-caps, it is not as consistent as you seem to believe. See examples of “Humans” here. Also, more to the point, you might notice that it does write “humans”, all lowercase, in its URLs. No technical restriction commands this: it is an editorial choice. This is probably simply what the style guide (be it explicit or not) for URLs at AMC mandates. Which makes Wikipedia’s take a less unfaithful one that it might seem. Palpalpalpal (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "HUM∀NS" is correct, because it's an upside-down A, not the symbol for universal quantification. "HUMⱯNS" might be better. Though I'm not even sure that how it's stylised (or how any TV show title is) is important. For example, in Friends, "F•R•I•E•N•D•S" was removed following a discussion on its talk page, and Lost (TV series) doesn't say it's stylised as "LOST" either. Many TV show titles appear in full capital letters on their title card. Even Doctor Who does. It's not important. The name is Humans. –anemoneprojectors– 16:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Your symbol does look better; I've replaced it at the moment but depending on where this conversation heads, it might be better to just remove the bracket altogether.
I think the styling is definitely important: it's part of the title. But given that we already have an image of the title card in the infobox, maybe it's wrong to have "(styled as HUMⱯNS)" in the lead. You can already see exactly how they style it on the right-hand side of your screen — the spacing between the letters is also a stylistic feature and arguably just as important as the upside-down 'A', but no-one's suggested we add spaces between the letters. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

"HUM∀NS" displays properly on mobile; HUMⱯNS does not, fwiw. –xeno^talk 11:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a shame, because "HUM∀NS" is less accurate. Maybe even more reason to exclude it entirely like other TV show articles on Wikipedia. Also, I only ever see it refered to as Humans. –anemoneprojectors– 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It is stylised as "HUM∀NS" in the title card, I can't see how "HUMⱯNS" is better? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnGormleyJG (talk • contribs)

Because Ɐ is the letter A turned upside-down, but

∀ is a symbol in mathematics. –anemoneprojectors

– 15:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

But that is the way it is in the title card. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 19:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an upside-down A that fits in with the rest of the word. "HUM∀NS" comes out wonky and nothing like the title card. So yet a third reason to abolish the "styled as HUM∀NS" part. –anemoneprojectors– 21:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

What about using ASCII directly? That is, HUMⱯNS, displayed as HUMⱯNS? Nevermind, that doesn't work on mobile either.

The|Whovian

01:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that specifying “(stylised as [whatever])” is redundant with the title card and should be removed. If it were to stay, though, it must be noted that the ambiguity between upside-down A and the universal quantifier is probably intended. Palpalpalpal (talk) 19:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that nicknames are given for some characters but not for all, e.g., Laura is frequently called Laur by her husband, Sophie Soph, and Toby Tobe. To make matters more complicated, the official billing sometimes uses the nickname (e.g., Mattie, not Matilda, see [12]) and sometimes uses the regular name (e.g., Laura, not Laur, see [13]). Is there a consistent (or customary) way to deal with nicknames in the characters list? – Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I see that no-one else has responded to this so I'll write a quick response. It's best to use whichever name is most common;

WP:COMMONNAME seems to apply only to article titles, but I think the principle of using the most recognizable name applies to any part of a page. "Laura" is definitely more common than "Laur"; the latter doesn't even warrant a mention in the article in my opinion, unless Joe uses it more often than I remember. I don't think "Tobe" was used much, either. However, I'm pretty certain "Mattie" is more frequently used than "Matilda". The way this article follows this – writing "Matilda "Mattie" Hawkins" under the cast section and then using "Mattie Hawkins" throughout the rest of the page – seems perfect as it is to me. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e)

15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bilorv. I'd go with Laura, Toby, Sophie, and Mattie (but Matilda "Mattie" in the cast section). –anemoneprojectors– 10:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Things like: Changed, Missing or Amalgam Characters, story-lines, world info. Amalgam characters like: Roger (Storyline) and Ove Holm (Work and life) into one Character D.S. Pete Drummond. Roger and Jill not having a son! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.250.28 (talk) 20:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It's only a minor issue (though still important enough for one user to personally insult me), but if "parallel present" means anything, then that what is depicted is not, but could be, the world we live in *today*. The world of Humans clearly is set in a possible future with technology far more advanced than ours. The source from which the term "parallel present" is drawn made an obvious (except for one user) mistake that should be marked in the article. --Arno Matthias (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

"important enough for one user to personally insult [you]" — was that me? I'm very sorry if it was; I didn't intend the summary to be harsh or a dig at you. For what it's worth, I think the series seems like a not-too-distant future but would still make sense as a parallel present. But I don't really think my opinion is worth much. The source says "parallel present" and I can't see anything that outwardly contradicts it, nor any good reason to include "(sic)", which I think would just be confusing to readers rather than helping explain anything. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything about the show except the state of robotics and AI is set in the present. –xeno^talk 20:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this an argument for 'present' or 'near future', User:xeno? --Arno Matthias (talk) 08:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

We follow the sources; if you have a source that says "near future", please present it. –xeno^talk 11:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's in the present. The only difference from reality is that robot technology has started earlier and is more advanced at present. In the opening sequence you can see popular videos (most can be found on YouTube) of our present's robots, except they are in black/white or sepia. This is supposed to show us all of that happened a while ago in the universe of this series. --Benimation (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

episode 8 is the last according to the channel that aired it in norway.84.213.45.196 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It has officially been renewed for Season 2, and is reliable sourced. Episode 8 was the last episode of the first season (or series, depending on where you live - each country uses the two words interchangeably).

The|Whovian

00:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think I was planning on creating it... about 6 months ago. Feel free to create it yourself if you want. Otherwise, I'll put it on my increasingly long to-do list. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Created. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e)

18:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dark Cocoa Frosting: Yes, you are correct cast should be listed by credit order. I just never payed attention to them so I cannot say what they are. But you are correct cast should be listed by credit order. -- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 16:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made the changes to the infobox. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Why for Humans page, the cast is listed by alphabetic order meanwhile in others pages it listed in an other order ? It's totally stupid to put in first actors who appeared only in one or two episodes and put in last actors who have important role and are in all the episodes... - 92.149.192.237 (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The cast is not listed in alphabetic order here. Hurt is last, after Webb. The cast is listed in the order they are credited (as in, appear in the show's credits). It was the producer's decision (and in this case, I assume the producer decided on alphabetical, except Hurt who is added last). The credit order is the standard practice for other shows, too. You can read about the guideline here:

WP:TVCAST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk • contribs

) 12:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

And I see a very similar discussion was up before, for the cast order in the article, see above, where Colin Morgan has been pushed to the top without any reason, justification, or reference. (Indeed there seems to be no systematics to the order of the cast list.) Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Dark Cocoa Frosting. I don't edit this page often, but just as a heads up, the Colin Morgan pest from last year appears to have reared his ugly head again, this time as an IP. I'm absolutely dreading the back-and-forth on The Fall that started yesterday. Good luck! --Unframboise (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Should D.S. Karen Voss read D.I. Karen Voss (Inspector, not Sgt)  ? 81.141.24.63 (talk) 16:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone heard whether there's going to be a third season? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

So far, it has not been confirmed. It will be added to the article once information is available on the programme's renewal or cancellation.

?

23:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Humans (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10

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.

• 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) 14:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else notice the change in the Voss character in Season 2?

She seemed way more 'stiff' robotic than 'smooth' android as she was in Season 1.

Has anyone come across any reason(s) as to why the portrayal change?

Also, is it mention-worthy enough for the article? 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember noticing this. If it's been mentioned in reliable sources then it can be added, otherwise it looks like a potential violation of

WP:OR. — ᴀnemoneᴘroᴊecтors

22:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello, could whoever has decided to take it upon themselves to remove my factual edits please message me? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe 1121122 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

The edits to the cast added unnecessary detail, and we don't add spoiler disclaimers per

^TW

04:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)