Talk:Counterpart (TV series)

Television: Episode coverage Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Requested move 10 November 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No consensus for move. Not moved. Consensus against moving. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpart (TV series) → Counterpart – revert undiscussed move – Dohn joe (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dohn joe and In ictu oculi: The television series is not the most important meaning of the word "counterpart(s)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stronge oppose this is covered by WP:MOVE and WP:ASTONISH: a newly created stub for an upcoming TV series should not be inserted into the baseline slot supplanting a term which has been around since the 1450s. Please see just one example Google Books counterpart + contract . Then try the same counterpart + finance, counterpart + law, and so so on. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose there are many topics "counterpart" which are covered in various articles. This TV series hasn't even aired yet, so clearly not primary. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY. There is no other topic on WP called "Counterpart". You may have noticed that there was no Counterpart page until this article was created! Why make Counterpart a dab page when we have an actual article with content at that title? Also - since this article was recently moved without discussion, a no consensus result here means a revert to the previous status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not what WP:NOTADICTIONARY says. Nothing in WP:NOTADICTIONARY requires counterpart to be an article about an upcoming TV series. Counterpart (TV series) is a newly created stub, before being inserted, without discussion fair enough, into the baseline what did Wikipedia used to search result to? In just one article Counterpart theory the body includes x61 uses of the word "counterpart", do these refer to the upcoming TV series? Evidently not. You are misreading WP:NOTADICTIONARY that only entertainment products and things "called x" are topics. Compare again the hurricane example, we have no article called hurricane that doesn't mean that there is no topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

???? WP:NOTADICTIONARY says that WP articles must have encyclopedic content. WP does not do articles on dictdefs. So we have no inscrutable, unfathomable, inexplicable articles, even though they're common words. If someone wrote a notable book called "Inexplicable", well, then we'd have some encyclopedic content. Same here. Until this April, there was no encyclopedic content for "Counterpart", so it was either a redlink or a redirect. Now we have some encyclopedic content, so that's where the title should go. It's all about helping our editors and readers navigate this encyclopedia. Dohn joe (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are 3 wordy adjectives, Counterpart is a common noun with several related articles. And the finance and law articles on the dab page don't have encyclopedic content? Again you are fixating on title not topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTALBALLing the topic of "Counterpart" with an unaired TV series? When did we become Entertainment Weekly? -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed Not primary topic, as per IIO above. Tiggerjay (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Premise

Was lifted from a source like this: http://doubleosection.blogspot.ca/2015/04/ or else directly from the series website. That's not what a premise for Wiki purposes is. We can't be having that for WP:COPYVIO reasons but also because the text as written was mixing in-universe (plot elemens) and out-of-universe (critical/production concepts like 'themes'), which is apples and oranges. I'm not sure that a word like "metaphysical" is a clear opener for describing a science-fiction concept such as parallel world either. We can start with what was written, but it needs re-writing. I'm watching the first 3 episodes today. If no-one else re-writes it by then, I may do it myself. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

Does anyone have an idea how we could re-write this to reflect how so many people are playing dual roles? We are only really describing one of each at present. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler is better. Let's leave as is, with the minimal character descriptions. Details are in the plot summaries (as they should be). —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of the cast, anyone know how we should handle main vs. recurring? Similar to Outlander (another Starz series), they seem to credit any prominent role in the episode in the opening credits. Generally, we consider any actor credited in the opening credits a series regular, but that's probably not the case here. Since several of the casting announcements listed some actors as just recurring (Stephen Rea, Kenneth Choi, and Richard Schiff for example). Right now, the "main" section is just listing the actors listed on the Starz website, which seems fair. Should we trim the infobox as well to match? Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's unfortunate if they actually do their credits like that. *sigh* Sounds like we could be veering into original research if we go that route... it should be cited and commented if that's how we deal with their non-standard billing practices. The infobox should definitely match the "Main" list, though, however the "Main" list is generated. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "simpler is better" is a solution. This isn't like the occasional Star Trek Mirror Universe interactions, it's the whole premise of the show. Many of the actors (if not all of them) are playing two different but similar people who happen to share the same name and genes but remain separate and distinct. If we only describe one character played by the actor, we do that actor a disservice and likewise effectively leave out half the characters. Presently we are semi-acknowledging (ambiguously) that one of the actors was playing two roles because in her case their names and/or aliases were different (Baldwin), but the way that is set up is how we'd normally do it for one character going by two names (a bit misleading for this series). I've just noticed Prime and Alpha are being used in the plot episode summaries, and that this is sourced to the show. Surely that's a solution? Maybe as parallel columns? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I note not what Alpha and Prime are evidenced by, but two derivative or secondary matters:

NOT invented by WP, bcz i'm hearing those terms tossed around on the Web by fans unlikely to have picked them up just from WP talk pages. Presumably originated by either the production team or network, and we need to know, state, and document, which of those is the case.

For the record, i had dismissed the terms as originated by Startrek writers or Trekkies, based on the fact that prime and alpha each refer to the first in a series (whether of primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary, etc., or Greek letters), and i am humiliated by having to accept that well-financed pros would establish a scheme equivalent to distinguishing between "oneth" and "fustest".
(In fact, could it be that we'll soon find out that natives of the flu-wracked side call it "prime" and the other "second", while the natives of the other call their own side "alpha" and the others' "beta"?? Or (to come down to brass tacks), did i just get it backwards? In either case, that strikes me strikes me as a fine mind-f***, that we should keep our eyes open for.)

As to coping with this rare challenge, here's a modest proposal: until we find *characters* who use "Alpha" and "Prime" (or is it the reverse?), let's avoid using proper-name labels for the "2 worlds" in the article; to the extent necessary, we can in any case get by until then by referring to any of the very clear hallmarks:

population decimated or not
local version of Howard's wife functioning or not
cold & high-ranking, or warm & low-ranking, version of Howard treating as it home

--Jerzy•t 07:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerzy: I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say... but "Alpha" and "Prime" are the names established by series creator Justin Marks; it's why I added a note with a citation in the first episode plot summary next to the first use of "Howard Prime". Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Esuka323, Joshbunk, and Joeyconnick: To get back to the main point of discussion: Do we need to re-write the cast to reflect those actors playing dual roles? And, if so, how?

Please bear in mind that we shouldn't describe the characters from an in-universe perspective but as actors portraying dual roles. Rather than using Alpha and Prime, we could say "our world" vs. "the other world". Like:

J. K. Simmons, portraying the dual role of Howard Silk, an employee at the Office of Interchange (OI), a Berlin-based UN spy agency in both worlds
Olivia Williams as both Emily Silk, Howard's wife in our world and Emily Burton, his ex-wife in the other world
Harry Lloyd as Peter Quayle, OI Director of Strategy in our world
Nazanin Boniadi as Clare, Peter Quayle's wife and a mole from the other world

In the Episodes section, it could be "our Howard" for Howard Alpha and "the other Howard" for Howard Prime. For example, this could be the description of Episode 1.

Howard Silk is a low-level bureaucrat in a Berlin-based UN agency called the Office of Interchange, where he works in the Interface division, exchanging coded call-and-response messages with another agent. Despite his long tenure, Howard has never learned the purpose of Interface or OI. Peter Quayle, OI's Director of Strategy, later denies Howard a promotion to his department, citing Howard's age and lackluster career. After work, Howard visits his comatose wife Emily, who was struck by a car. The next day, Howard is taken to a room with Quayle and Aldrich, the Director of Housekeeping. A man identical to Howard is brought in. Quayle explains that during the final years of the Cold War, the East Germans accidentally created a portal to a divergent parallel universe in the basement of what would become the OI building. The Howard from this parallel world explains that an assassin codenamed Baldwin has crossed over from his world with a kill list that includes Howard's wife. That night, the other Howard imitates the Howard of this world at Emily's hospital and ambushes Baldwin, but she escapes. The other Howard returns to his world and visits a bar where he encounters the Emily of his world. He had told our world's Howard that she was dead.

You will note that my modification is not a mechanical substitution of our/other Howard for Howard Alpha/Prime. In my mind, this is more in keeping with our obligation to not express things in a fictional-world-as-real perspective. It seems to me that the terms Howard Alpha and Howard Prime are too much like what executives might say while visiting the Counterpart set and trying to convince themselves that all of this is real -- that there is a Howard Alpha and a Howard Prime, two separate individuals. They have to do this in order for the show to appear "real" to its audience. They have to do this; we do not and, IMHO, should not.

Just a suggestion. Any comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC); 06:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cast" vs. "Cast and characters"

Hi Amaury,

With respect to this reversion, I'd request you revert the article back to its previous state. Given WP:STATUSQUO, it actually falls to Lbtocth to come to the article's Talk page and gain consensus for their change. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They made a WP:BOLD edit, yes. However, your entire reasoning for not wanting a "Cast and characters" header seems to be entirely on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. I'll explain as best I can. When there are no character descriptions, from an out-of-universe perspective, the focus seems to be more on the actors. Now, when there are character descriptions, we're putting more equal focus on both the actors and the characters they portray by describing what their characters are like and so on. As such, that deserves to be recognized under the section title of "Cast and characters." Then of course you have the "Characters" format, but that's more appropriate for animation since the characters are entirely the focus there as you're not actually seeing anybody portray anybody, just voice them, though that's not really the case here, obviously. Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree. I can't figure out why section headers shouldn't be descriptive – 'Cast' for a simple "actor as characters" list, and 'Cast and characters' for a listing that contains actor, character, and a character summary listings. Now, I admit – the "character summaries" at this article are very sparse, so this one's probably on the borderline between a simple 'Cast' list and a true 'Cast and characters' list. But it's closer to the latter than the former, and there's no reason to think that this one won't see further "evolution" over time with expanded character summaries. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, my objection was the reason given for the change initially was "see MOS:TVCAST", and MOS:TVCAST very clearly does not provide the interpretation that you, IJBall, and Lbtocth are apparently going by. Then IJBall reverted my restoration. If you look at Lbtocth's contribs, she has a habit of making many changes in a short period, and has specifically gone on a bit of a tear with this one, to the point where IJBall essentially said, "Hey, maybe take it easy" on her talk page (and also acknowledges that MOS:TVCAST doesn't require "...and characters"). And then you implied the onus was on me to explain myself.

So what should have happened is one or more of you, after my initial revert, should have come here and made your case, which sounds like a relatively reasonable rationale for preferring "Cast and characters" in some circumstances (albeit nothing that is referenced or included in MOS:TVCAST). But that did not happen... instead, I was reverted, twice, even though each time I made the effort to explain my reasoning. I could argue that MOS:TVCAST specifies that cast lists should focus on real-world info, and shouldn't take the form of the often plot-bloated collections many TV articles end up with, or that it's debatable as to when character description becomes substantial enough to warrant adding "...and characters". But that would be fruitless at this point as your overall reasoning in this case isn't crazy and apparently we'd just disagree on where the tipping point is. If only you'd led with the reasoning, though, rather than trying to force the change through and trying to make it seem like it was my edits that needed justification. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This implies that every reasonable change requires a Talk page discussion, rather than an edit summary justification, which is very much on the WP:BURO side of the ledger. Even in Lbtocth's original rationale was insufficient to justify the change, the one I gave in my edit summary wasn't IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]