Talk:Hijack (TV series)

Television 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.

Definite articles in character descriptions

Hello @User:Drmargi, you have suggested discussing our disagreement here, despite ignoring two of my previous attempts to discuss a separate matter with you, but I'll give it a try anyway. Character descriptions normally do not include the definite article ("the"). For example, even if there is only one man walking a dog throughout a movie, the character description in the appropriate section of the article wouldn't read "the man walking his dog". Instead, it would state "a man walking his dog". This is grammatically correct and conventionally standard. What is your argument for insisting that in this case, the character description state "the passenger sitting next to Sam"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. There is one, and only one passenger sitting next to Sam. Therefore he is, syntactically and grammatically, the passenger sitting next to Sam. The notion that it is "standard" to refer to him as a passenger sitting next to Sam, which incorrectly implies there is more than one, is nothing I've ever heard of, and is not in the MOS. Wikipedia TV articles are rife with hackneyed phrases and grammatical errors that need cleaning up. Enshrining this one as "standard" (whatever that means) because we only use indefinite articles simply makes an error acceptable. MOS 101 is we use correct English grammar and we describe characters accurately. That means we use the in this character's description. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request (Disagreement regarding the use of a definite article in the Cast and characters section of a television series article):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Hijack (TV series) and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

There is no policy or guideline that covers this, and I'm not aware of any consensus on "the" versus "a" in character descriptions. That said, I lean towards "the" in this case because it is more precise. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

British series

All of the companies involved in the production of Hijack are British: 60Forty Films, Archery Pictures, Green Door Pictures, and Idiotlamp Productions. I am stating that in the article. Tangamandapiou (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The series is an AppleTV production, and as such is a joint British/American production, as with others produced in Britain. AppleTV is not simply the distributor. This is consistent with how other British-made Joint productions by Apple, Netflix, PBS and others are handled. --Dr.Margi ✉ 20:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I already mentioned the number of British production companies that actually created the show; in fact, several websites, including Mashable, Vanity Fair and Common Sense Media, consider Hijack a British show and I have already provided the proper sources which support this. On the other hand, your claim that this program was “commissioned by Apple” (source?) seems to have come out of your own good wishes, as does the idea that “Apple isn't simply the distributor” (source?). Finally, your assertion that this way of writing articles is consistent with the way other British series have been handled in the past is just an appeal to tradition: we've always done things this way, and therefore we have to continue doing them like this, whether they are right or wrong. Tangamandapiou (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Hijack is AppleTV original programming, it's unclear how this would be a British series. This is a very different scenario than if AppleTV licensed content originally produced by the BBC, for example. I generally agree with the points raised by Dr Margi above, and would support keeping the intro the way it is now (omitting any mention of British vs American). GoPats (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exatly my point @GoPats. --Dr.Margi ✉ 00:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you’ve mentioned the “original programming” thing, I'll allow myself to resort to the appeal of tradition as well. Netflix calls Black Mirror a Netflix series and at the same time it’s described as a British series on its Wikipedia page. Apple calls Bad Sisters an original series and it’s described here as an Irish series. In what way, Black Mirror is a Netflix original series and, at the same time, a British series? In what way is Bad Sisters an original Apple series and, at the same time, an Irish series? Well, because the country of production and the company that bought its distribution rights are not the same thing. And those are just two examples, but they could be expanded to Heartstopper (Netflix), Suspicion or The Essex Serpent (Apple TV+), etc. Tangamandapiou (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]