Talk:Killing Eve/Archive 1

Archive 1

Filming Locations Source

I know there has been some heat generated regarding KE filming locations so I thought this might help editors in their work.DNA Cowboy (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Salon article

The Salon review is really out of step with the others, swapping an acceptance and wariness of the character’s danger for a neutralising appreciation of it. If it’s not removed shouldn’t it at least be contrasted with the others? 105.226.114.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The part of the Salon reference that 105.226.114.50 appears to be talking about, refers to developing relationships among women, whereas other references relate in relevant part to strangers' (especially men's) perceptions of women (especially Villanelle). Therefore the Salon article is not "out of step"—and shouldn't be "removed" even if it were. —RCraig09 (talk) 22:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Start of filming/production date

The article currently has this as August 2017 but if you look at a behind the scenes photo posted on instagram by Jodie Comer from her first day of filming the board has the date 17 July 2017:-

https://www.instagram.com/p/BhTLwQFH0Pn/

Can we clarify this dating?C3MC2 (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

BBC America/AMC ratings

It looks like we have an issue with editors adding in the AMC ratings & combining the numbers. That generally isn't done on TV pages and I think doing such things like combining the numbers without any sort of context is deceptive. We should be sticking with the first run BBC America ratings only. Esuka (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The only other simulcast I can think of that's on Wikipedia is NFL playoffs on ESPN/ABC, and the viewership/ratings are combined on that page. If you think it's deceptive, then just give BBC America and AMC their own columns. It's more deceptive to hide the total viewership. Casual page visitors will think there was a large drop in ratings when there was actually a large increase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.140.86.216 (talk) 07:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing on the page has been hidden. This is a BBC America series and we only report the first run airing numbers from the network and nothing more. Esuka (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Why is the immediate assumption some sort of conspiracy of silence because we're only listing the viewership (not ratings, BTW) for the show's commissioning channel? There's nothing unusual in that. AMC partly owns BBC America, and Killing Eve is a huge critical hit for BBC America, but needs to build an audience. Given AMC has a reputation for high quality series, it makes perfect sense they would also broadcast KE and give it a chance to develop a larger audience. So they broadcast the show concurrently (not a simulcast) to expand KE's audience. That doesn't mean we need to report AMC's viewership. TNT and TBS do the same thing with one another's shows, and we don't report both sets of viewership figures. A note or discussion in the broadcast section can address the bump in viewership (and in rating/share if those data become available) can be included if need be, particularly once some sort of pattern develops. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 04:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

AMC refers to it as a simulcast (https://www.amc.com/shows/killing-eve/talk/2019/01/amc-to-simulcast-killing-eve-season-2) along with several third party news articles. Though it's semantics, viewership and ratings are both listed on this page. I found another example of a simulcast on Wikipedia, the Waco miniseries on Paramount Network and CMT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_(miniseries)#Ratings ). Their ratings chart lists the figures separately by channel along with a total column. I'd recommend this page use that as an example for how to handle season 2. 65.74.61.174 (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Poorly maintained pages have nothing to do with us, we're just following the guidelines set out on Wikipedia. That is in this case to only report the ratings for the original network. I'm sorry that you don't agree with this but that's just how things are. Oh and by the way, I've never seen a television page use a ratings table format like the Waco one, it's frankly an abomination. Esuka (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Serial

It is a Serial, not a Season nor a Series. A single story told over more than one episode is a serial. A series has different stories for each episode. The USA use season for all but this is British so it is a serial.

Agree with what you say, but is this truly British? It was commissioned by BBC America, so maybe it is first and foremost American. Regardless, I'd be happy to see changes to the text as you suggest. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Ratings

The text says "The first season had unbroken weekly ratings growth among young adults especially" but the ratings in the table below show a fall for episode seven, not growth46.254.201.36 (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC). Ian H - Wales

Nationality of the production

Drmargi, MapReader, 30PRCCT, RCraig09, user:Esuka323 and anyone else interested: I'm a little confused by the current state of the article; BBC America is an American entry but Sid Gentle Films is based in the UK. The date format and English version was changed back to American, but the lead only says "British-made", the infobox references the UK, and the article is in two British TV categories.— TAnthony^Talk 19:27, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The show was commissioned by BBC America (based in the U.S.) and produced by Sid Gentle Productions and BBC America Productions (per the credits, which are our definitive source), thus a UK/US co-production. Prior to all your changes, it said that more or less. The use of British-made at least clarifies that distinction somewhat, since the original country of transmission is the U.S. and the program has not been broadcast in the UK. These co-productions get funkier and funkier to explain all the time. It's not as simple as a UK production being shown in the U.S.; this was made for American TV by a British company in collaboration with an American network, and features an international cast. What it isn't is a show BBC America licensed after it was produced; its future lies entirely in the hands of an American network. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So if that's the case, should the lead not say "British-made American drama television series" or something, the infobox be updated, and the article put into American TV categories?— TAnthony^Talk 19:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds reasonable to me; I can't speak to categories since they're of no interest. I just rephrased the lede slightly to hopefully clarify the relationship a bit while you left your last post. I prefer my wording, which is a little less clunky and a more specific than the stock phrasing. As for U.S. dates, they make sense given the show is broadcast in the U.S. and we have U.S. ratings. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I ask because there was such drama regarding the date/language formats, but the infobox and categories were ignored/left inconsistent.— TAnthony^Talk 19:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's fix 'em! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

With a mix of national involvement I don't see a case here for establishing strong national ties to any one country (which would normally be done via RfC in any case), so the Engvar should be as first established in the post-stub article. Being transmitted on an American network doesn't per se justify a change from one Engvar to another (which is strongly advised against by the MoS) and the original tag should therefore stand. MapReader (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The U.S. is the first country of broadcast, and BBC America is the commissioning network, which makes American English the sensible approach. The MOS doesn't handle this issue well because it was written before such contingencies arose. Given the U.S. broadcast dates and ratings, consistency is key, which is also strongly advocated in the MOS. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 21:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The MoS is clear that editors do not change from one Engvar to another unless strong national ties to a single country have been confirmed. There isn't any ambiguity there. MapReader (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I said as much here (without citing WP:RETAIN), but the entire article was changed again by 30PRCCT a few days ago before he/she replaced the tags.— TAnthony^Talk 22:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has been in American English since it was developed by an editor who has started a sizable number of TV articles, and knows how Engvar works very well. Where has the program been broadcast? One country: the United States of America, which also is the country of origin for the production company that commissions it. The country in which it is filmed is secondary to that. That's sufficient to use American English throughout the article. Again, consistency is at issue, and given we are looking at American broadcast data, for a show broadcast only in the US, American date formats are appropriate per the MOS. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

TAnthony As you say, the tags should not have been changed without a consensus decision on strong national ties - which appears unlikely here where there are links to multiple countries. I have tried to restore the previous position as per RETAIN and STATUSQUO, but unfortunately DrMargi wants to disregard the policy and edit-war it (despite already being subject to an ANI complaint for precisely such behaviour). She must know that country of broadcast alone does not constitute strong national ties. The status quo should be restored whilst this discussion continues; someone may want to do the right thing? MapReader (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

The broadcast dates using mdy format does make sense, since the dates refer to events in the US only. But the Engvar tag does need restoring to British in line with RETAIN - two editors have recognised this in talk already as being the required approach under WP policy; the British-made and UK/European storyline and creative input into this series do not support a switchover to American Engvar based on national ties. Hopefully this position, which both complies with policy and is a compromise in relation to the earlier dispute, will avoid the need for any further edit warring. MapReader (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really experienced enough as an editor to add anything of value to the discussion, but back when I first added the numbers for the premiere the article stated it was a British made series and over the course of the shows run that has been randomly changed to British-American and back. I'm happy to accept whichever is the accepted standard for the article and will throw my support behind the right decision once made here. Esuka323 (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

No-one has objected to the compromise, as proposed above two days back - move to mdy dates, restore the original British Engvar tag, and this is now done. MapReader (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

No objection is not consensus. I have repeatedly objected to any use of British formatting in an article with a stable version in American English. Unless you have consensus, the article remains at status quo, which is fully American English. Please review the article history carefully, not selectively. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop warring this article. Under WP:Retain both Engvar and date format should be returned to the previous status quo; conceding the point on date format is a compromise change that gives you the majority of what you were looking for in terms of the previous set of changes. The previous tagging was British English and the article has contained such for a long time, as was recognised by several of the posters above. Returning to war this article when we have a compromise implememted is seriously disappointing given your previous editing of the article. MapReader (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You're doing the same damned thing. The editor who locked the article wanted the discussion to continue; they tend to stop while articles are locked. The first chance you had, you made a change instead of resuming the discussion. I reverted per WP:BRD' that's NOT warring. Your revert of my edit IS. Now, leave it alone and let's talk this through. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand why this is even being debated. BBC America is a majority-owned British company and this is to all intents and purposes a British production. It should certainly be in UK English.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Various editors appear to have tried to make this change, with a single editor reverting. This should now be re-visited under the revised MoS, which is based on citation. KE has just won the principal award at BAFTA, for which only "British television programmes" are eligible (unlike EMMYs for which the criteria is having been aired in the US). BAFTA in considering the potential nomination recognised "the significant creative contribution from key UK talent throughout the production" (writer, production company, cast), and noted that "development and post-production took place in the UK", which all directs to the secondary criteria within the MoS. In the US, Hollywood Reporter lists KE first in its list of recommended "foreign series".[1] These two extremely reputable sources with BAFTA recognising it as British and HR as foreign are sufficient to meet the requirements of the MoS. But it is easy to find other sources, aside from many reputable British media sites, including US citations such as movies-daily.com,[2] RollingStone magazine,[3], listing on the US fan site 'The British TV Place', and New York Magazine's Vulture.com.[4] MapReader (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between a show produced in Britain and a British show; this recent flush of sole ownership both mis-represents the show's origins and is just the usual British nationalism given the show is uber-popular. It was commissioned by American networks BBCAmerica/AMC for American television. It would not exist if BBCA's production arm had not commissioned it for the U. S. The BAFTA is thin evidence of anything; the academy had to give the show a variance to compete because it is produced by an American network and was first broadcast in America. Per MOS:TV, joint productions carry no country of origin, and the article was originally written in American English given its country of first broadcast. There is no justification for the changes. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

You need to address the Mos and not simply present your personal opinion. You haven’t provided any citations to support your viewpoint. BAFTAs are only awarded to British shows, the variance relating to specific matter of the prior US transmission only. There are in any case further citations above including the reputable Hollywood Reporter describing the series as foreign. MapReader (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Once again, you are pushing a personal agenda regarding nationality of a show that clearly has joint origins in the U.S. and U.K., demanding sources to back up others' edits while providing none yourself, while adopting an "I am right and that means policy doesn't apply to me" attitude. Given the conflict, the article must stay at WP:STATUSQUO. You cannot simply discuss away the participation of the commissioning AMERICAN network and country of first broadcast (the U.S.) in order to push a personal agenda. Any further reverts will result in a report to the appropriate discussion board. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no personal agenda, other than to have an encyclopaedia that reflects the views of reputable sources. Your edit history is the one that strongly suggests a personal agenda. You seem to be missing the point of the MoS, which is that nationality must be evidenced directly by citation or, failing that, by citation as to the creative decision making (noting that this show has a British writer, production company, was produced in the UK and with a significantly British cast). I have provided citations from BATFA, Hollywood Reporter, moviesdaily, rollingstone magazine, and New York magazine, all except the first being American sources. There are further potential citations from radio times, guardian and telegraph newspapers. I don’t see any citations that you have provided, at all, and it would be helpful if you could engage with the terms of the MoS. The commissioning network is not in itself a relevant criterion. I am moving this discussion to the article page where it belongs, so that others ( 30PRCCT, RCraig09, Esuka323 or Esuka, TAnthony and NEDOCHAN are all those who have contributed previously) can comment. MapReader (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Is this not a simple case of there being consensus? It seems to me as if you're ignoring consensus in favour of your own interpretation.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think now six (certainly at least five) different editors have made this same edit during the life of this article, plus there are comments in agreement from the Talk above, with only one editor dissenting. We also have a consensus of reliable sources both British and American, as cited above. It is important to emphasise that the extent of the US involvement in financing and production isn’t denied, and is well and properly covered within the article; but these alone are not critical to the nationality of the creative product. DrM is welcome to continue the conversation or seek to escalate, but simply reverting should now be seen as WP:TE. MapReader (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree @Drmargi: you should not revert without discussion, as consensus seems clear.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmargi, it would be helpful if you would kindly have a read of MOSTV, rather than returning simply to edit war this article without participating in the discussion. You will see from the MoS section on the lead article that the dual nationality reference you have now twice reverted into the article is expressly ruled out by the MoS, and it isn’t constructive to keep editing a non-compliant format into the article. You’ll also see that nationality is derived by citation; you do need to engage with the debate on the terms of the MoS, rather than trying to construct your own line of argumentation which is clearly OR. NEDOCHAN and I have already asked you not to edit war and rather to engage on the talk page. Continued WP:TE would justify a report to ANI. MapReader (talk) 21:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I have. I'm just weary of your nationalistic ownership of any show that is in whole or part British. Killing Eve is a collaborative production, which would not exist without BBCAmerica. That makes it British-American. The MOS indicates that in those circumstances, we do not list a country of origin. You and your cronies are trying to use local consensus to get around that, which is a major Wikipedia no-no. You've pulled the same thing elsewhere and gotten away with it. It stops here. Unless you can provide sources that BBC America has no creative involvement that is branded as a BBC America Original Production, the status quo phrasing now in place must remain, and you must stop using your cronies to try to force an edit against policy using local consensus. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, please drop the misplaced accusations, and the inappropriate descriptions of other editors. Secondly, recognise that WP reports the world as seen by reputable sources - not as argued by any individual editor. On the talk page there is a string of sources to support the creative product being described as British; had it not been so it would have been ineligible for a BAFTA award. And you can see for yourself that Hollywood Reporter describes it as a foreign production. BBC America (majority owned by the BBC in any case) was clearly involved, and is already cited in the article, but this is not the critical factor to its nationality. You really do need to produce reputable sources on nationality if you wish to pursue this further. That is the policy. Here are some more, all except the first completely American sources: from the BBC,[5] 'I love British TV',[6] Town & Country magazine,[7] Cinema Blend,[8] Screenrant,[9] and MSN,[10] . In South Africa the DVD is marketed under the genre "British television".[11]. And here's an interview with the TV critic of the Washington Post, someone who should know.[12] MapReader (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmargi you're being utterly ridiculous. Your main point seems to be that as it's commissioned by BBC America it's American. BBC America is majority owned by the BBC. Think about the name BBC. Stop warring and accept consensus. You're being absurd.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, the commissioning is a complete red herring in any event. Not only does commissioning have no import on the nationality of a creative product, but nationality is - in line with WP-wide principles - determined by primary referencing, not by one editor’s OR. MapReader (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Drmargi, MapReader, RCraig09, TAnthony, NEDOCHAN, As a Brit who hates American companies constantly trying to take credit for British shows (for example the 9 British shows on HBO this year alone), this isn't one of those cases. It was commissioned, produced and first broadcast by BBC America. BBC America is an American network owned by BBC Studios and AMC. BBC Studios and the BBC are different companies. BBC America is not part of the BBC network, therefore it's not British. Danstarr69 (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I've found the whole discussion to be much ado about nothing. There must be a way to factually specify which entity(ies) made the show, without calling it "British" or "American" (Manual of Style etc. be damned if it prefers nationalities be specified in the intro—simply explain it!). —RCraig09 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

But you're missing the point. The "therefore" in your post indicates that you have constructed a line of argument. Whereas as editors our job is to reflect the (reliable) sources - by all means weigh them if there is contradiction - but it is not for us to perform OR or original argumentation as you have done. The counter-argument to yours is that neither commissioning or broadcasting determines the nationality of a creative project (if I had the money I could commission an Italian writer and producer to produce a TV series in Italy with an Italian cast in Italian with an Italian storyline and then have the finished product broadcast on my TV network there and elsewhere in the world. That would nevertheless likely be described by the media as an Italian TV series). As across all of WP, editors following the sources avoids debates like this and if the sources don't help, the article can explain the detail as RCraig says above. MapReader (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

BBC studios is the majority owner of BBC America and is owned by the BBC.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)