Talk:Love Island (2015 TV series)

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2015. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

On 8 August 2019, it was proposed that this article be moved from Love Island (2015 TV series) to Love Island (British 2015 TV series). The result of the discussion was leave this article at its current title.

Television: British / Reality 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 British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Reality television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Order of names

Why are the names in such a random order. Surely they should be alphabetized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstarrzz (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are alphabetical. ThisIsDanny (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rules? Format?

Apart from saying it is about "dating", nowhere does this article explain what happens. Is the point that they win money if they have sex? Or if they don't have sex? Complete crosswords? Commit to marrying each other?

This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia people, so please try harder. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.62.255 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 July 2016

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, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:51, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

– Even the dab page got more viewers, because of people who thought the revived series was at that title.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they weren't looking for the 2005 series or the movie? — AjaxSmack 00:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Both films rarely receive more than 20 views in a day. Plus the original show was never that commonly viewed when the revival wasn't airing (even between series). Unreal7 (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Obviously there will have been a greater level of interest in the current tv show while was on air, but since it ended about ten days ago page views have been declining rapidly. Give it a few months and look at this again when we have some more reliable page view data. PC78 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this move 2601:541:4305:C70:2414:76D4:553D:2D6B (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:RECENT. If this is still getting way more page views in five years time, then there might be more of a case. — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – You're forgetting that there's movies called "Love Island". Billboard Man (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New changes

New series pages have been created due to the success of the series now, plus having all 3 series cast etc was getting too much for the page - it would be so cluttered years down the line. Now there's users such as Lauren's World being disruptive. She has been warned. Anybody else, other than her or the IP's she uses constantly to disrupt other articles disagree with the individual pages? ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New page name?

Since there are more and more versions of the show in other countries now, is it worth changing the page names? To Love Island (UK TV series) or Love Island (UK 2015 TV series)? ThisIsDanny (talk) 22:46, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Love Island (2015 TV Series)' should be changed to 'Love Island (UK TV Series) well the 2005-2006 series should be changed to 'Celebrity Love Island (UK TV Series)'. The series that broadcast between 2005 and 2006 featured UK celebrity's so it makes since to change it to this. The 2015 series is different from the old series and should be changed. The page looks confusing --Slindsell15 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 June 2018

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. Still no clear evidence of WP:PTOPIC. (non-admin closure) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– The show's at the peak of its popularity now, so let's try again, shall we? Unreal7 (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support of changing its name, but thought with there being so many international versions now, should we include UK in the article title or not? If not I'd still be happy with taking away the 2015 bit. ThisIsDanny (talk) 11:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose over used, and WP:RECENT. Nothing changed. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It did. Unreal7 (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, things have changed massively for this over the last 2 years since this was last requested. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Here is a pageview analysis. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per OP's claim of peak popularity as being a shining example of what not to base decisions on per WP:RECENTISM. Adding the Australia series to the page views demonstrates that this isn't the dominating usage you assume. We shouldn't be bouncing articles back and forth to the primary topic on such a whim. -- Netoholic @ 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back and forth? It never went back or forth. And it's more notable right now than the other subjects ever were. Unreal7 (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Back and forth, as in, I feel like we'd regret and revert this move at some point in the future (when some other version perhaps has its own fleeting surge of views) if it went through now. -- Netoholic @ 00:51, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's crystal ball talk. Unreal7 (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Implied within a page move request like this one is the assertion that in, let's say, ten years' time, the article will still be at the same new title. Implied also is that editors who oppose a move request think that within that same time span the article would likely be moved back or to some other title. Neither of these is necessarily "crystal ball talk", but we do have to make a judgment based on present information about what is good for the article (and other articles named similarly) in the long run. -- Netoholic @ 12:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Netoholic - All 4 pages are frequently viewed and when you compare the UK & Aus versions[[2] both are viewed a lot - Sure the UK tops Aus but only by about 4-7k more ..... If the UK was the most viewed one with the rest being extremely poorly low (like 50 views a month poor) then sure but that's clearly not the case here. –Davey2010^Talk 21:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about changing it to "Love Island (UK TV series)" maybe so that it's easily differentiated from the Australian series - and also following a number of other TV series that air different versions in other countries? ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2005 and 2015 are both UK versions, so we'd still need the year. Aus version is naturally-disambiguated. -- Netoholic @ 00:48, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, WP:RECENT. —swpb^{T go beyond} 16:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed merge with Love Island (2005 TV series)

This TV series is a revival of Love Island (2005 TV series) [3]. We have one page for Doctor Who even though it was cancelled between 1989 and 2005 (except for a special in 1996). Should we not have one article at Love Island (TV series) which covers all series of the show? jamacfarlane (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The 2015 series is very different from the 2005 series. Back then it was called Celebrity Love Island for a start (during the 2005 series), and followed a completely different format to what it does today. I can't see many similarities to the series at all actually. While I understand your point about Doctor Who, there are also some series that were very different when they revived, such as Gladiators (1992 TV series) and Gladiators (2008 UK TV series) who also have their own pages. ThisIsDanny (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% set on moving, but don't see how two ITV series with the same name and basically the same premise can not be the same show. The 2005 article states "The second series began in July 2006, dropping Celebrity from its name", so "Celebrity Love Island" is only a former name. It's not the same as The Apprentice and Celebrity Apprentice being the same show. Pinging editors involved in previous RM jamacfarlane (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support - even though I'd prefer it to be the primary topic. Unreal7 (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In ictu oculi (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name of the 2015 Love Island series

As Love Island is now In many different country's around the world I think the name of the British series should be changed from 'Love Island (2015 TV Series)' to 'Love Island (UK TV Series)' aa the American and Australian versions use this. The 2005 and 2006 series can just be called celebrity Love Island and dosen't need to be included in with the 2015 series. --Slindsell15 (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

#New page name? ThisIsDanny (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Love Island (series 1) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 August 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) Colin M (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– This is being requested by me as a variant on the informal request at Talk:Love Island (2015 TV series)#New page name?, which posed the targets as using "UK" instead of "British". My purpose is simply to formalize the informal request. The argument made in the informal request related to multiple countries having these series, and the actual title of the 2005 series as including "Celebrity". User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 21:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the celebrity version was known (according to the article) in its second season simply as "Love Island" so the 2015 can't use the base name as it leads us right back to being ambiguous. The 2005 should use its last official name. --Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Gonnym. Blame the broadcaster here, but the current disambiguation scheme is the best choice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lead: second paragraph

There has been some tooing-and-froing on the second paragraph in the lead. Per WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD I have reverted back to the STATUS QUO in the hope that this can be settled by discussion, rather than further edit warring. I was somewhat bemused by the edit summary that it could not be in the lead as it is elsewhere in the lead. This is nonsense: a lead should summarise the article, and that includes important points - including criticism of the programme. - SchroCat (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SchroCat. What I find particularly disconcerting is that the user who attempted to remove the small intro paragraph, ThisIsDanny, is apparently a fan of the show (you'll see on their user page that it is all links to series from Love Island and similar reality shows, as well as links to the 'islanders' page). This suggests that they have an agenda in purging the introduction of any criticism of the show. Also, what reason is there to remove the information? It's not like the intro is overly long and needs cutting down. As SchroCat says, it's important to give a brief indication of the article's contents in the introduction, and this small paragraph partly does this. Considering the small paragraph is just a fraction of the size of the criticism section I think it is an appropriate overview that refers you to the more detailed criticism section. I am also bemused by the edit summaries that supposedly explain the reason for the content's removal; saying merely it "doesn't belong here" is not really convincing enough. Also, I would note that the second paragraph in the lead has been in place since its addition on the 8th of May, and so its presence in the article has been unopposed by users for over 2 months now. AmSam13 (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is being a fan of the show relevant to this at all? If I were to remove criticism of the show then I'd remove the criticism section. I simply stated that a mention of the cast suicides should not be included in the top, and I also removed the section about the BAFTA award as well (which is a positive) as I do not believe that should be there either. I do however believe that something about Caroline's death should be in the top though rather than the contestants, but at the minute as stated by another user seems very biased - and it's just speculation to say their suicide was linked to the show. Again, the length of time it's been in the article is also completely irrelevant. You could have incorrect information there for a year and it wouldn't make it correct. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat, your support came from a sock--I'd take it with a grain of salt; they don't know much about article writing or what's relevant, esp. in BLP-related matters. Hope you're doing well, Drmies (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~Sigh~... didn’t see that one at all! Thanks Drmies. All’s (mostly) good, thanks – I hope you’re keeping safe and well. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 June 2021

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nom. (non-admin closure) Shontal Smith (talk) 04:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The revived version has now been on for six years with seven series and is obviously the most notable. The celebrity series was on television for a year with 2 series, the first of which was referred to as Celebrity Love Island. The series pages are extremely long winded (2015 TV series, series #) seems completely unnecessary when this is the main British series. Shontal Smith (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed by IJBall (contribs • talk) on 4 June 2021, using proper version of {{Requested move}} for multiple page moves.

Support I agree that this is the most notable series, but renaming Love Island to Rose West seems a bit odd. ThisIsDanny (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – the first Love Island was only called "Celebrity Love Island" for one season: IOW that's not the series' name. Look, sometimes naming schemes aren't "convenient" – but what is being done here already is the best available option under the circumstances. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As IJBall says, the celebrity series was also known simply by Love Island. This style of disambiguation is also used in other articles such as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series, season 1) and Dallas (1978 TV series, season 1). Gonnym (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was only Love Island for series 2 though, the old series has always been referred to as Celebrity Love Island in the press, and if it’s ever revived one day with celebs, which it could be it would still be Celebrity Love IslandShontal Smith (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per the above, this is the naming scheme that works best per guidelines and the other series. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2021 (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.

Neutrality in the lead + my edit being reverted

My edit in the lead is being reverted by another user, citing "Introductions of articles are there to summarise the body content of an article." What is clear to me is that the lead of this article is failing WP:NEUTRALITY because it only talks about controversy (suicides) and doesn't take the opposing side into account which is just as significant (i.e. the show's popularity). It's pure wrong for the article to completely omit that. --Jf81 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just told you why this addition is inappropriate and improper, I refer you to the post I have already made on your talk page. For a start, Metro is a depreciated source. Done Us All Good (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I believe you're wrong hence why I have brought this matter to the talk page for the community to decide. I am 100% assured that the lead of this article is failing Wikipedia's neutrality policy and that needs to change. --Jf81 (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I refer you to my answer below. Done Us All Good (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question of neutrality, this is about whether this content's inclusion is proper:

1) You have not got a consensus for the addition of this content.

2) It is referenced to Metro (a depreciated tabloid source) and an opinion piece from The Conversation, and you have also not referenced these correctly (only providing a bare URL); both of these are not good enough as sources.

3) As I have told you, the lead is there to summarise EXISTING content in the body, not to introduce new content or themes. The existing lead includes a summary of the existing "criticism" section of the article, where as the random inclusion of your content in the introduction is not merited. Done Us All Good (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) Not got concensus? You haven't read the WP:Be bold policy then. I have the right to add the content.

2) This one I'll concede, but I can easily add better sources from better sites. The popularity/viewing figures on paper of Love Island doesn't lie, and sources will easily be found for this point. (thanks to a quick google, https://www.itv.com/presscentre/press-releases/love-island-launches-most-watched-tv-show-year-young-people a primary source that it was the most popular for the young in 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/08/love-island-becomes-itv-most-watched-show-ever a secondary source that it became the most viewed show of ITV2). And don't get me started on the bare URL; a good editor would try make it into a complete reference, instead of using it as an excuse to remove information altogether.

3) So why not just create a Criticism section and help improve this wiki article instead of removing everything altogether? Sorry mate but this sounds incredibly anti-Wikipedia and what this project is about. --Jf81 (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like User:Done Us All Good was a sockpuppet. I have restored the addition I made (and changed 2 refs to better ones). --Jf81 (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Format of show

I think this section needs updating. In some of the more recent seasons the contestants didn't start the show in a couple based on first impressions. Instead some of the more recent seasons the contestants were coupled up by viewers via the app. I also think the phrases "steal a boy", "steal a girl" should be explained. (Fran Bosh (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Season 10 controversy

Bookies favourites Whitney and Lochan didn't have their "best bits" during the final. They ended up not winning. Should that go in the controversies section or just the season 10 article? (Fran Bosh (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]