Talk:The Americans

Requested move 18 June 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: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT wouldn't work per WP:PRECISION. If the article enters into the predicted slow decline and later is no longer the primary topic, the articles can be rearranged then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• The Americans (2013 TV series) → The Americans
• The Americans → The Americans (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Usage criteria by a huge margin based on page view counts[1]; all other uses of "The Americans" are totally obscure. You can see this in WP search box too if you type in "the americans" - you'll see this article about this series and its episode articles. And by long-term significance, critically acclaimed as one of the greatest TV series of all time, now six years old and still dominating page views, it "deserves" primary topic status. The very, very few users actually looking for one of the other uses of "The Americans" can get to the dab page via the hatnote link. And, no, anyone searching with "the americans" (plural and with the the) is very unlikely to be looking for American (singular with The), Americans (plural, without the The) or The American (singular with The), so those are not relevant here. Anyone going to the trouble of including the The and using the plural Americans in their search is almost certainly looking for this article. В²C ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - this is an encyclopedia not an entertainment blog. One could possibly argue for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT if the objective is to help readers, but removing (2013 TV series) benefits no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How often does this argument work? One in ten attempts? It rests on essentially denying the point and existence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which, applying it in this case, benefits the vast majority searching with the term in question ("the americans"). It helps almost no one to send all of them to the dab page instead of to the article they are seeking. Anyway, the current title is also unnecessary disambiguation, contrary to WP:PRECISE ("define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that"), and the proposed title is clearly more WP:CONCISE. --В²C ☎ 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Concur with nom with regard to usage, though not quite on long-term significance; this is still a recent show while the much older photography book and radio commentary appear to have a certain amount of significance in their own right (at least, taking those articles at face value). That said, over the past four years the TV show has received around 94% of all pageviews, while the dab page has received more pageviews than the rest of these topics combined. This move has a clear and tangible benefit to our readers. PC78 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you watched it? This story line itself has important historical significance (cold war). It's as much art as TV/film can be. It's truly remarkable. --В²C ☎ 01:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The TV of course has high page views while it is currently airing - that does not prove that its a long-term primary topic. This phrase in particular seems like it has WP:NOPRIMARY because "The" is too small a difference from Americans. -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Netoholic. Now the series is done, hits to the article will likely enter a long slow decline. The term is too close to generic for a TV article to claim as its own. MapReader (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support It's currently primary with respect to usage and has been for a while. None of the entities at The Americans stand out as primary with respect to long-term significance. If, in 10 or 15 years, the 2013 TV series is no longer pulling in the majority of views, we can have another move discussion then. (Or maybe it'll stand the test of time as a TV classic, and we won't have to. WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that.) For now, seems like a pragmatic measure to help readers find what they're looking for. Colin M (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi, Netoholic and MapReader. The initial entry at The Americans disambiguation page is: "The Americans may refer to: Americans, citizens of the United States", in the same manner as typing "The English" takes users to the article English people, or typing "The Dutch" takes users to the article Dutch people. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The English and The Dutch are redirects becasue the terms are not ambiguous, and because there aren't notable TV shows with those titles... PC78 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    • In each instance, national identity still remains the primary meaning. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The "primary meaning" in what context? The relevant context here is people searching Wikipedia with the string "The Americans". To those people you think the primary meaning is national identity? Really? I just don't understand this propensity to interpret "primary meaning" and "primary topic" outside of the Wikipedia search context and then apply it in this context. --В²C ☎ 16:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Interesting suggestion. Before I can make a final decision either way, a couple of questions occur to me, and which might help to make this easier for other editors: Are there other series which don't have the "(YYYY TV series)" disambiguation in the title, yet have potentially ambiguous titles? The reason I'm asking is that I use WP a lot for reference on productions I'm watching, whether film or TV, and I'm used to searching for "The Americans (2103 TV series)" because that's the well-understood format that WP uses to differentiate TV series from other articles regarding "The Americans". I'm not sure that a page's individual popularity is sufficient reason to break with that convention. A second question would be, is it possible to derive from the pageview statistics how many users ended up having to follow the link from the "The Americans" disambiguation page to the series page? Because if they're accounting for a high number of hits on the disambiguation page, then it suggests the series page is really the target of 95% or more of the traffic using that search term, and that might weigh in favour of supporting the move. Cadar (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Here are a few example PRIMARYTOPIC TV series articles, yet are potentially ambiguous:

  1. The Sopranos/Soprano
  2. Law & Order/Law and order
  3. The Good Wife/The Good Wife (disambiguation)
  4. The Good Fight/The good fight (disambiguation)
  5. Gunsmoke/Gun Smoke
  6. Bonanza/Bonanza (disambiguation)
  7. Columbo/Columbo (disambiguation)
  8. Kojak/Kojak (disambiguation)
  9. Alphas/Alpha/Alpha (disambiguation)
  10. The Bill/The Bill (band)/The Bill (Inside No. 9)

  I think ten is enough to establish substantial precedent for this practice. As to trying to account for the number that get to the article page via the dab page, I don't think that could be done but I also don't think it's relevant. I think it's safe to say that most arrive to WP articles via Google, usually directly to the page they seek without regard to whatever the title happens to be. PRIMARYTOPIC is a mechanism to make navigation more efficient for the minority that uses WP search - it is our job to make that work as well as practicable for as many as possible. That's the whole point of PRIMARYTOPIC, that unfortuantely seems to be often overlooked, I believe. --В²C ☎ 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support, then, although real or putative traffic via Google is outside of our remit and should in theory have no bearing on the subject. But I suspect, the majority of hits likely do come via search engines. I'm probably one of a fairly small number of users who have custom searches - such as one for Wikipedia - set up in my browser. Having said that, server administrators would be able to check the server logs to find out that kind of information, which would include logged search terms and traffic via search engines. It's not impossible to find out, it just needs somebody with the right level of access and perhaps some basic SQL or similar skills to get the raw statistics. Cadar (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My point though it is regardless of whether 90% or 10% are coming in via outside search engines - they are being taken care of by those search engines. Our focus should be on those who use the WP search, be it 10% or 90%, to ensure their experience is as good as we can make it. Recognizing primary topics and titling/placing our articles accordingly, as proposed here, is part of that. --В²C ☎ 21:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I do get your point, but that's not why I'm supporting the change. I have severe reservations about supporting it for that reason. If they do their searches off the site, then the name we give the article is irrelevant, and as previously stated, searches off site are outside of our remit. I think that using a standardised naming convention for ALL articles would be the way to go, and users can learn the standardisation; but since we don't have standardisation and there are no other really relevant searches for that specific string which get anything like the quantity of traffic, I'm supporting the change in this single instance. But I would not, under any circumstances, support the same change for all such articles.

Cadar (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The TV show is the primary topic for the term "The Americans." We need not disambiguate based on partial title matches. Calidum 23:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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.

How much hatnote is too much?

See discussion about hatnote lengths in particular, and the one currently on this page in particular, here:

Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#How_much_hatnote_is_too_much?

Ping:@Joeyconnick:

--В²C ☎ 18:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So vis-a-vis WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD, Born2cycle, please self-revert to the shorter version while we discuss here.

You keep saying your version is "one line". Here is the screenshot from my browser, the image being 2470 pixels off an iMac retina screen, so actually 1235 pixels wide, which is not a particularly narrow width for a browser (this is with zoom set to 100%, regular CSS, etc.). Your version is not one line. In fact, it doesn't become one line until I widen my browser to 1584 pixels, and it's quite a leap to be stating that most people would have a browser window this wide.

Beyond just the width, it's been decided via consensus that the TV series is primary. Listing even two potential alternate targets is excessive—using what criteria have you determined that the 1961 TV series and the Frank book are worthy of inclusion but the band, the Jakes novel and the gang are not? It's clear we should revert to simply pointing people to the disambiguation page via {{other uses}} as was previously the case before your recent edit. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Need help fixing links

Here is the list of articles with references to The Americans (2013 TV series). Each article on that list needs to be edited to change the link to The Americans (2013 TV series) to be direct to here at The Americans. I've been whittling away at that task (example diff), but could use some help... thanks! --В²C ☎ 18:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTBROKEN, they don't really need to be fixed as The Americans (2013 TV series) just redirects to this article. Of course, if you wish to continue, then good on you! Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

• I disagree, removing these pipes removes the very helpful hovertext, and is a net backward step. Hovertext is very useful for readers who want more information on the ambiguous wikilink (the displayed wikilink is obviously ambiguous to any reader not familiar with DIFFCAPS). Please don't remove piping that provides the PRECISE hovertext. This WP:NOTBROKEN piped wikilink allows you to see where this shortcut takes you, without filling the page with a really long url. It is useful and has no reader-impacting downside. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Over at User_talk:Andrewa/P_T_test_cases#It_is_already_a_problem, Andrewa argued that the unambiguous The Americans (2013 TV series) redirect was important since "hundreds of users per day were using that redirect". My contention is that this is only because of the hundreds of links through that redirect; that it's not important because they're only using it indirectly. So, it's something of a test case, which can only be tested by removing all the links through this redirect. After this link cleanup task is done and we give it some time, we'll see the effect on the view counts for this redirect. Plus, it's hard to compare page views prior to the move and after the move if the view counts remain distorted by all these links through a redirect after the move. As to the hovertext, all that tells you is that "The Americans" is a TV series which is already obvious in 99-100% of the references to it from context, and that it began in 2013, which is only there because there is another TV series with that name from 58 years ago which is so obscure it gets hardly any page views. While such hovertext may be useful in other cases, here I don't see how it is at all, so I'm not seeing any user impact from this. --В²C ☎ 18:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  Here's a particularly good example. At List of television programs: A we have:

*''[[The Americans (1961 TV series)|The Americans]]'' (1961)

*''[[The Americans (2013 TV series)|The Americans]]'' (2013)

which of course renders as:

• The Americans (1961)
• The Americans (2013)

So the point of adding "2013 TV series" to the hovertext when the article is about TV programs and the plain text already says 2013 is what, exactly? Here's how it is now:

• The Americans (1961)
• The Americans (2013)

--В²C ☎ 00:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Hovertext is a particular tool, a good one, for accessibility. Explicit text works too, but is not always best for the main layout, usually not good for mid-sentence. You should stop destroying things that you don't understand. In the above examples, I would not bother adding the piped PRECICE link, but there is no advnatage in you removing it, and your systematic removals are hitting other examples not like the above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Born2cycle, thanks for the ping, but please stop this pointy exercise, for which there is no consensus support, immediately. Discuss here or at User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases#Actively damaging the product or User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases#It is still a problem. Andrewa (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

For those who favour [[The Americans (2013 TV series)|The Americans]], do you see it as a problem that we have 0 wikilinks of the form [[The Sopranos (1999 TV series)|The Sopranos]] or even [[The Sopranos (TV series)|The Sopranos]]? I mean, obviously all these piped links only exist because the article's title used to be "The Americans (2013 TV series)". I'm having a hard time believing anyone would intentionally construct such a piped link if they were writing about the series now, post-move. Colin M (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No. The Sopanos is not ambiguous. While one could talk about “the sopranos” as that squeaky part of the choir, it is not done nearly as much as others write about the Americans, that modern people ascribed with a large number generalised characteristics. I didn’t participate in the recent move, but it looks like it was a mistake. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wanna try that one again? The Sopranos IS as ambiguous as The Americans: The Sopranos (novel). —В²C ☎ 07:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, you got me there, I thought the novel was related, a source or a spinoff. Well, it’s not ambiguous with anything important. I try to avoid worrying about titling of topics on commercial popular culture, except where they encroach real topics. Commercial popular culture deliberately goes for common terms and double meanings, and are usually passing fads, if they succeed at all. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The close was arguably OK, but the result was unfortunate. Nobody's fault, but that's why I raised it at User talk:Andrewa/P T test cases#The Americans where much of this discussion also belongs. Warning, there's a lot of discussion there already! Andrewa (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If you manage to squirm out of your Sopranos dilemma, SmokeyJoe, surely you agree Law & Order is ambiguous, right? Then do you and Andrewa think it is a problem that we don’t link to Law & Order with [[Law & Order (TV series)|Law & Order]]? Or with [[Law & Order (1990 TV series)|Law & Order]]? If so, then are you advocating we change the links accordingly? If not, how are you distinguishing with The Americans? —В²C ☎ 07:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No, I don’t think LaO is ambiguous. The important topic is Law and order (politics), and even if not parenthetically disambiguated, very helpfully too, the DIFFCAPS is good enough. Not all SMALLDETAILS are good enough, but the O is. The other competing topics appear to all be spinouts of the same thing. The thing with “the Americans”, “The Americans” if at the start of a sentence, is that it is frequently the important topic of “the American people”, or alternatively the related “the American people’s government”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think this needs further discussion in view of the opinions expressed by Colin M and MapReader. It still seems to me that web users are advantaged by the link being to an unambiguous name, using the pipe trick. But mobile users may not be, if it means the wikilink goes via a redirect, which I think is what has been said elseswhere. If that is so, then the best solution all around is, again, to have the article at an unambiguous name. Which does not surprise me. Having ambiguous article names is just asking for trouble. Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Now it will be interesting to see what happens with the page view counts over the next week or so. —В²C ☎ 07:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The most interesting thing will be how you intend to interpret those statistics. Andrewa (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Explain, please. —В²C ☎ 07:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Let us just see where the exercise leads, as we've come this far. Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Effect on page view counts

The page view counts are changing in the expected direction, but slowly. 2478 vs 336 on Aug 20; 2742 vs 196 on Aug 21. So I think the redirects don't matter very much after all. I'm guessing the page views the old (disambiguated) link continues to get are mostly from old external links, perhaps mostly from Bing and Yahoo which are still sending users to the old titles. --В²C ☎ 20:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

22 Aug 2019: Bing and Yahoo still point to the old disambiguated title. Nevertheless, those counts continue to drop, though the main article counts dropped too[2]. 2526 vs 135 (down from 2742/196). --В²C ☎ 20:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

None of that is surprising, surely? And some of it is of course the direct consequence of your own "fixing" links via those redirects. That's a bit like a politician opening and financing a heroin den and then producing statistics that show drug use increasing in that suburb.

I think we need to agree to disagree as to whether these redirects matter very much. I think that all readers matter. Andrewa (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it’s not surprising and it supports my point that such redirects don’t matter very much, except as a patch/workaround after a page move. All my link corrections did was set them to how they would be had the article been at the ambiguous base name in the first place. —В²C ☎ 04:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that your "corrections" have distorted the data, which was always going to be of questionable value anyway (see #Pageview reliability below of course), in order to prove a point that nobody was disputing in any case, and have left us with hundreds of wikilinks which will become mislinkings if ever the article is moved again, a possibility explicitly foreshadowed by the closer of your RM. Andrewa (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, please explain how the "corrections" have distorted the data. Presumably they've affected the data. Frankly, I'm not sure by how much. First of all, if a link goes through a redirect, and someone clicks on that link, does that redirect's page view count get incremented from that click? After all, the user never actually viewed the redirect, and is likely unaware they even went through it. In fact, whether the link goes through the redirect or not, the user experience is identical, unless they happened to hover over the link. So, anyway, assuming clicking a link to a redirect does count as a "view" of that redirect, how is no longer counting "nonviews" as views a distortion? --В²C ☎ 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll try. You have now made this as experimental study rather than an observational study. There is no prospect of conducting a valid experiment here, or of now conducting the observational study that might have been fruitful. I guess it's that last sentence that you'd dispute? I also note the unless they happened to hover over the link above. This seems to rely on your belief that hovertext doesn't matter, which is of course disputed. Andrewa (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

We have observational studies of page view counts before and after the title change, and against before and after the link-fixing. See the table below. I still don't understand what's distorted. Hovertext matters sometimes, I'm sure, just not in this case. At least I didn't find a context where it matters in the hundreds I examined as I fixed the links. In every case, the information from the hovertext, that it was a TV series that started in 2013, was either already obvious or not very useful or both. If you know of a situation I overlooked where it does matter, please show me. --В²C ☎ 20:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Did any of the articles you fixed also link to The Americans (1961 TV series)? I know it's not likely to be many, in that they were connected only in name mainly, but in 300 articles more than possible. And your exercise has made them a lot harder to find, but that's the first place I'd like to look. Andrewa (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No. All linked to this page. —В²C ☎ 13:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

And none of them also linked to The Americans (1961 TV series)? That was the question. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the 1961 series has 57 links from article space; the 2013 series has 621 (not counting transclusions and redirects), which is another indicator of primary topic not even mentioned in the RM. All the other uses of "The Americans" on the dab page each have less than 50 article space links to them. Americans has many more, but that's arguably not a target for "The Americans". In fact, I've been unable to find an example of "the Americans" which refers to Americans. For example, in United States at the 1896 Summer Olympics, the reference within "The Americans were the most successful athletes..." refers to the US Olympic team that year, not to the Americans. Even at Military history of the United States during World War II, where there are 25 separate references to "the Americans", none of them link to Americans, nor should they. Maybe there are some legit uses of "the Americans" which do or should link to Americans, but I can't find any, and I'm sure there are less than 50; no where near the 621 the 2013 series has. So, it's the clear primary topic for "The Americans" by the link count method, despite all the article space links to (The-less) Americans. --В²C ☎ 15:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The main game of course is, will this continue? And we will need to wait some time to find that out. Andrewa (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

25 Aug 2019: Bing and Yahoo still point to the old disambiguated title, almost two months after the move on 26 June. Daily averages for last five days are 147 for the disambiguated title, presumably mostly from external sources including Bing and Yahoo, and 2582 for the article at the base name. Note that in early July, a few days after the page move, the daily averages were already 2214 and 764[3]. So Google probably was already redirecting to the base name by then. Also, I started the corrections to the redirects on August 9. The averages for the five days prior to that are 2260 and 619[4]. So before I started fixing the links, the distribution was still continuing to favor the base name. I finished the link corrections on August 20. The averages for the five days after that are above: 2582 and 147. So now I think that did have a big effect on how the page view counts for the redirect, from above 600 to below 150, even though they were not viewed. But virtually no effect on users. I think probably close to 100% of the remaining 150ish daily "views" of the redirects are because of Bing and Yahoo, and maybe a few other external links. --В²C ☎ 16:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

20 Jan 2021. Wow, almost two years after the move Bing and Yahoo still point to the old disambiguated title. The probably explains most of the "views" that page is still getting. --В²C ☎ 04:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes В²C I think this is a good example of why we should be careful about doing PT swaps, obviously if a primary topic is wrong moving it sooner rather than later is better and this move was find since it wasn't a swap. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

It’s odd because Google updates in days if not hours. — В²C ☎ 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Finally! Not sure when they fixed it since January 2021, but today, more than three years after the page move, the link to WP in the Bing search results for “The Americans”, and on Yahoo too, leads to this article with undisambiguated title. This is reflected in the page view counts for the old disambiguated title finally dropping to about one per day. See table below. —В²C ☎ 14:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Page view count table

This table helps see what the effects are. The numbers are the 5 day averages of the corresponding page counts - the five days preceding the date listed.

Date	The Americans	The Americans (2013 TV series)	Total
12/09/2017[5]	85	3401	3486
12/09/2018[6]	95	4186	4281
06/05/2019[7]	74	3429	3503
06/17/2019[8]	62	3063	3125
06/18/2019	RM proposed: The Americans (2013 TV series) → The Americans
06/26/2019	Title Changed: The Americans (2013 TV series) → The Americans
07/05/2019[9]	2215	729	2944
08/08/2019[10]	2260	619	2879
08/09/2019	Started link corrections
08/20/2019	Completed 400+ link corrections
08/25/2019[11]	2582	147	2729
08/26/2019[12]	2620	137	2757
08/28/2019[13]	2618	136	2754
08/31/2019[14]	2321	145	2466
09/03/2019[15]	2438	155	2593
09/08/2019[16]	2546	127	2673
09/16/2019[17]	2651	131	2782
09/25/2019[18]	2792	144	2936
10/27/2019[19]	2362	86	2449
11/11/2019[20]	2400	87	2487
11/21/2019[21]	2526	95	2621
12/09/2019[22]	2548	94	2642
12/17/2019[23]	2905	93	2998
12/29/2019[24]	3444	125	3570
01/20/2020[25]	3005	115	3120
02/17/2020[26]	2594	90	2684
01/04/2021[27]	4733	121	4854
05/11/2021[28]	2989	79	3068
09/06/2021[29]	2534	62	2596
09/06/2022[30]	2823	5	2828
08/28/2023[31]	2891	2	2893

--В²C ☎ 18:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Pageview reliability

• Pageviews are unreliable, even if interesting to look at for an intiL overview. Pageviews stats are heavily influenced by systematic bias. Fanatic audience members of commercial popular culture, associated with privileged nations and technology, can produce a Pageview hit with every idle twitch. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing you play with pageview counts and attempting to make decision algorithms makes me think you suffer the Dunning–Kruger effect. This sort of data is already massively harvested and processed by google, one example. Google uses the information dynamically, using artificial intelligent algorithms, with live feedback. They track hits, plus time to next search, plus the next hit where you linger. You appear to want to make Wikipedia function like a 1980s BASIC programmed google, and are blind to the purpose of Wikipedia as a scholarly repository of information, not facts. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem was well demonstrated by this edit, which very confidently and completely misinterpreted the data. There was no attempt at what my Math Stats lecturers called reasonableness, and the results were a bit sad... a critical typo was overlooked, which made the post pure rubbish, and the sarcastic comment cringeworthy. Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, don't be such a drama queen. That was not completely misinterpreting anything. Yes, the difference was not as significant with s as with S (in [S/s]eries), but it's enough to make my point. Of course, discovering the page view counts for The Americans (2013 TV series) were more than a handful is what led to me removing all the links to that redirect, to see if the reason for that count was due to all those links. Early indications are that the counts are dropping but it's still too early to tell. I suspect there is also residual effect of the old title within external search engine results which are still being worked out (but that's just a reason to keep the redirect). --В²C ☎ 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Drama queen? If I said something like (rolls eyes). Dude, you need to find something with more impact to do with your life.. (diff above), now that would be drama. If I said something like don't be such a drama queen, now that would be more drama... no diff required. The point is that behind this drama on your part were statistics which were wrong (owing to your typo), but which you took at face value. And that is the problem with your whole approach, wanting to rely entirely on page stats. Even if they became popular enough for their page statistics to eclipse the traditional meaning, a band called Mathematics shouldn't be moved to the base name. We need reasonableness checks as well as statistics. And any competent student of statistics could tell you that if you would only listen.

(but that's just a reason to keep the redirect)... Exactly. In fact regardless of statistics, there are reasons to keep the redirect. It's both useful and harmless. Now, if you're finished rolling your eyes, (sorry, that's drama too isn't it, couldn't resist) and if we are agreed that the redirect should be kept regardless of any statistics, maybe we can consider that there might also be reasons for creating such redirects? This was the question. Andrewa (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, I'm very curious to know what you think the reasons are to create redirects like The Sopranos (TV series). I agree they're harmless. I just don't see how they're useful. Feel free to address the below. --В²C ☎ 20:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Andrewa (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I just searched for "The Americans" at bing.com and the link to here is still to the old title at The Americans (2013 TV series). Google, however, already takes users to the new title at The Americans. Once Bing catches up, I suspect the page view counts for that redirect will evaporate almost completely, eliminating basis for the claim that if we are to have ambiguous titles for (primary topic) articles, that such articles should have unambiguous redirects, and not only when they were moved from such. --В²C ☎ 16:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

There's no doubt that they will. And that it will prove absolutely nothing. We have no way of producing the statistics needed to prove that the redirect from the unambiguous name is useless. Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If The Americans (2013 TV series) has some utility as a redirect (beyond being an artifact of the article's former title), what exactly is its nature? And wouldn't that be shared with, say, The Sopranos (TV series), which does not even exist? If the page view counts drop to nil in a few months, that will prove the redirect is practically useless, and we don't need it except as the previous title artifact, and we certainly don't need redirects like The Sopranos (TV series), which you seem to think we do (assuming we don't adopt your preference to move all articles to unambiguous titles like that). --В²C ☎ 17:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the redirect from The Sopranos (TV series) would be a good idea, by my logic. Not a high priority but useful for some, however few they may be, and completely harmless for the rest of us. So why not have it?

But my preference is not to move all articles to unambiguous titles like that. I really thought we had covered that, several times now in fact. Please, read the proposal. Andrewa (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I suggest a serious heart-to-heart session in front of the mirror, Andrew. "the best solution all around is, again, to have the article at an unambiguous name. Which does not surprise me. Having ambiguous article names is just asking for trouble." --В²C ☎ 20:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

A very good idea. But the more I have considered it, the more the answer seems to be simple and obvious... ambiguous article names are a bad idea. They seem to have net benefits only because we (self included) have long been unimaginative in assessing both the benefits and the drawbacks. In hindsight, they violate both the spirit of our article naming policy and the whole purpose of having article names. It's as clearcut as that. But it will take a while more to sell this, at best. Andrewa (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Searching for The Americans at Yahoo also produces a link to the old title at WP: the disambiguated The Americans (2013 TV series). No surprise that Google updates better/faster than the others. I wonder how long it will take Bing and Yahoo to update. --В²C ☎ 16:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Which proves...? Andrewa (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It proves anyone searching for information about the series at Yahoo (or Bing, but not Google) will arrive at our article via the redirect, bumping/distorting its page view count with no benefit to anyone. --В²C ☎ 20:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, suppose for the moment I accept the first part of that... anyone searching for information about the series at Yahoo (or Bing, but not Google) will arrive at our article via the redirect. Now, the question was, does this redirect help anyone? You seemed convinced it didn't. Don't these people count?

And they are not the only ones. The redirect helps anyone who sees, in any place and for any reason, a link they recognise as being the article they want.

And this has always been the spirit of WP:AT. Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously-named title as though that title had no other meanings! (Larry Sanger, bold is my emphasis, his overall emphasis including the exclamation mark and the "please"). Andrewa (talk) 02:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Andrewa, yes, of course users are helped by redirects that remain after a title is moved - no one, certainly not me, is arguing for not having such redirects. But I'm saying they - the ones accessing links that happen to still point to the old title - are the only ones who benefit from such redirects. If not for the move from the previous title which caused the creation of the links to the previous disambiguated title, there would be no benefit to having the redirect with a parenthetically disambiguated title pointing to the article at the base name. That's what I mean when I say such redirects don't have any intrinsic value. That's why The Sopranos (TV series) remains a redlink, and nobody cares: there is no benefit to anyone if it gets created, even though "The Sopranos" is ambiguous with The Sopranos (novel). The only way there would be a benefit to have The Sopranos (TV series) exist as a redirect to The Sopranos is if it had been the title of the article in the past, and there were links that still went through it. So, it, like all other such disambiguated redirects, has no intrinsic value. For anyone. --В²C ☎ 16:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

One way it benefits readers is that a wikilink can be created via the unambiguous redirect, which creates helpful hovertext. But of course you don't like these either, perhaps for that very reason. Andrewa (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

That's contrived and theoretical. I contend you'd be hard-pressed to find a single place where changing a link to The Sopranos to a redirect to it called The Sopranos (TV series) would actually be useful to anyone, for the hypertext "feature" or for any other reason. Prove me wrong. --В²C ☎ 20:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Sticks and stones... No it's not contrived, please AGF. Theoretical, or hypothetical, yes. You are already proven wrong. Andrewa (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Does WP:NOTBROKEN apply here?

A few editors have invoked WP:NOTBROKEN above, but I'm doubtful as to whether that policy actually applies to these edits. Copying from a comment left on B2C's talk page: NOTBROKEN says not to replace bare links to redirects with piped links (i.e. [[redirect]] → [[target|redirect]]). B2C's edits (at least the couple I looked at) are doing the opposite - replacing redundant piped links like [[The Americans (2013 TV series)|The Americans]] with the simpler [[The Americans]]. This seems like a desirable change according to the wording of WP:NOTBROKEN itself: Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form., and also Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links. See also WP:NOPIPE: First of all, keep links as simple as possible. Colin M (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good questions!

This general issue should be discussed on a suitable policy or guideline talk page before any more edits to "correct" these piped links are made IMO. Andrewa (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. Whilst replacing a link to a redirect with a link directly to the relevant article isn't the most critical of changes, it does represent an improvement. When someone using the mobile site on a phone or tablet clicks through to an article via a redirect, a redirect box flashes up on the screen, which is avoided with a direct link. Our job is to improve the quality and usability of our articles, and I certainly don't see any justification for ever reverting such an edit. MapReader (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. So, the mobile user is advantaged by having a direct link? That seems to me to be a problem with the mobile version, if indeed it's a problem.

The web user, on the other hand, is disadvantaged by the loss of the unambiguous hovertext. The mobile user not so? Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

On a mobile device, press and hold the wikilink and the full url will appear at the top of the option. That information is the same as the hovertext. I routinely do it to read what people are piping under their text. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

If the hovertext is needed to get a clear fix on what the article is about, then the title of the article is wrong. Build the disambiguation into the article title and you help everyone, mobile or PC. It makes no sense to have links pointing to places other than where they are supposed to go. MapReader (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the title of the article is wrong. Any ambiguous article title is in this sense wrong. But if we're stuck with ambiguous titles, as we are under current policy and guidelines, then a piped wikilink to the unambiguous redirect is a workaround.

But be careful not to assume that all readers have the same idea of what an ambiguous article title means. They don't. That's the whole reason Primary Topic fails us. For some readers, the unambiguous name will be needed to get a clear fix on what the article is about. Others will get lucky. Andrewa (talk) 12:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is getting somewhat bizarre. The format for a wikilink is clearly spelled out in policy, and directs straight to the title (or section) of the relevant article. No sensible person would deliberately use the incorrect title (and if they have an issue with the title, take it up on that talk page). Where additional information is needed to make sense of the link in its embedded context, use piping and put the additional info after the break bar. What goes before the break bar is the destination article, exactly as it appears in WP. Really that should be it. MapReader (talk) 04:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This discussion is getting somewhat bizarre. It's convoluted, yes, and much of what we're discussing really belongs on project talk pages not article talk.

The format for a wikilink is clearly spelled out in policy, and directs straight to the title (or section) of the relevant article. No. Policy is not clear on that at all... or at least there seem several interpretations at the very least.

No sensible person would deliberately use the incorrect title (and if they have an issue with the title, take it up on that talk page). Begs the question I think, if by incorrect you mean piped through a redirect. Sensible people do want to do that. Maybe they should be told not to. Maybe policy already does. That's what we're discussing.

Where additional information is needed to make sense of the link in its embedded context, use piping and put the additional info after the break bar. No. The whole idea of piped links is to allow wikilinks that do not tamper with the flowing text.

What goes before the break bar is the destination article, exactly as it appears in WP. Again, I think you're begging the question. There is a view that policy can and/or should allow wikilinks to be piped through redirects.

Really that should be it. I respect your opinion. But there are other views. Andrewa (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone else arguing that we should deliberately link articles via redirects rather than their titles? Or is it just you. MapReader (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I am certainly of the opinion that there are circumstances in which it's helpful to pipe via an unambiguous redirect, and that at least some of the wikilinks now "fixed" in the campaign that is the topic of this whole section (not just this subsection) are probably cases in point.

All your longish post above [32] seems to say is that you disagree, and that you think that should settle the matter.

Others above do seem to agree with me. Do I need to ping them? Still others agree with you of course, notably the editor who started this section. Andrewa (talk) 07:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

• The problems is that the article has a bad title. A mistaken PrimaryTopic assignment. “The Americans” primarily refers to the people of America. The TV series is a play on that meaning. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with that. But that's a matter for JHunterJ who made the decision. MapReader (talk) 07:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I also agree "'The Americans' primarily refers to the people of America". However, the whole point of PRIMARYTOPIC is about arranging our articles to reduce the average number of clicks required by users to find the articles they seek. So what matters is not what "The Americans" "primarily refers to", but what people searching with "The Americans" are most likely looking for. That's a very different question to which the answer is clearly the 2013 TV series, and exactly why it was recognized as the primary topic for "The Americans". --В²C ☎ 16:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Partly agree. the whole point of PRIMARYTOPIC is about arranging our articles to reduce the average number of clicks required by users to find the articles they seek... Our current article naming procedures do aid you in achieving this goal. I of course question whether it's the best way to structure Wikipedia's article naming, for several reasons both logical and practical. It does save many readers one mouse click. But it means we need to change names according to the flavour of the month, and more important (but partly as a result) IMO makes articles in general harder to find. But that last view is of course controversial.

I also agree "'The Americans' primarily refers to the people of America". And yet you deliberately and successfully moved a topic that's only distantly related to that meaning to the base name. Interesting. Andrewa (talk) 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

IMO JHunterJ (pinged above so I won't repeat it) made a very good close (as you would expect from his experience and thoroughness etc in such matters), and otherwise I would have invoked Move Review. Not his fault at all, nor of the others who !voted to move. It's the system that is busted.

But do we have rough consensus here that, in hindsight at least, the move was a bad thing for Wikipedia? That's the important question, not whose fault it was.

I'm seeing views above from SmokeyJoe and MapReader that The Americans (2013 TV Series) should not be at the base name as currently, which is of course my view too. But is that a fair statement? I don't think there's much chance of agreement from B2C (who proposed the RM of course), but even without it we may have a rough consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

You can't establish even a rough consensus about any title without a formal RM discussion where views are evaluated on how well they are based in policy and guidelines. BTW, we agree the system is busted; it has been busted since the inclusion of the historical significance criteria in primary topic. As I've long argued, the historical significance factor is already accounted for within the usage criteria as much as it should be. The significance of historical significance varies based on how much it influences how often the topic in question is sought. But that's besides the point in this case since adding "the" in front of "americans" transforms the term here. Note that The Germans and The Swedes are TV episodes, and only the former even has a hatnote link to the corresponding people article. The Greek is about a fictional character. The Russians, The Polish, The Mexicans and The Norwegians are red links. The Canadians is a dab page to three obscure references, and a mention of "the people of Canada". The original use for The Americans, in 2005[33], was as a dab page for an obscure book and commentary. The argument that "The Americans" should primarily refer to Americans is generally inconsistent with usage on WP, notwithstanding The English, The Chinese, The Japanese, The Spanish and The French, which, AFAICT, are not ambiguous with any other uses, and do redirect to the respective people articles (with extremely low, near-zero, page view counts, relative to The Americans). --В²C ☎ 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

True that I can't close it, as it's not a formal discussion of any sort, let alone an RM, and of course I'm involved. (The relevance of the rest escapes me. First things first.)

But if we three are in agreement that The Americans (2013 TV Series) should not be at the base name as currently, I think that's important, for many reasons, so I first wanted to confirm it with them.

I'm not proposing an RM at this stage. If we did move it back it would certainly make a point. How many wikilinks to the unambiguous name did you "fix"? They would then all point to whatever ended up at the base name. And the longer we wait, the more mislinkings (both internal and external) will be created. Lots to consider.

But maybe I'm misinterpreting quoting the others. So very interested to hear either way. And if it's in the wrong place (as I of course believe), should it be moved back? Why or why not? Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

MapReader, I made the close, not the decision. You've essentially accused me of WP:SUPERVOTE. Andrewa, thank you! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Spy thriller/drama category dispute

1. TheUnbeholden added this article to the American Spy Thriller and Drama categories[34]
2. MarnetteD reverted with edit summary "(rmv per WP:CATVER - there is no sourced info in the article to support the cat)" [35]
3. TheUnbeholden reverted that with summary " I'm using the IMDB link as source" [36]
4. Drmargi reverted that with no edit summary [37]
5. Then I just reverted that (restoring the cats) with summary: "(Duh. The show IS a Spy Thriller/Drama. Read the lead.)" [38]

Seriously, if you read any one source on the series you'll know that it qualifies as an American spy thriller and drama. But here's the first reference in the article:

• Americans’: FX Orders Cold War Spy Series Starring Keri Russell

And a quick glance at the Accolades section shows that it earned numerous drama awards.

Folks, please don't be so quick to revert, especially in areas where you haven't done the 30 seconds of research to refute your own claim that "there is no sourced info in the article to support the cat".

--В²C ☎ 17:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Before you start calling other editors out, read WP:CIVIL. The use of "duh", designed to make other editors feel stupid, is hardly civil. Then try thinking about the sequence of edits that lead to the reverts before you pass judgments. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

All categories added are subject to WP:CATVER so there must be sourced info in the article to support the category. This must come with a verifiable reference rather than WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the genre info not on those that check their edits. MarnetteD|Talk 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I apologize for the "duh" (you're right), but that's just venting frustration, not intended for anyone to feel bad. The very lead of the article, which itself must be based on sourced material, supports inclusion in these categories. It's like challenging someone adding Paris to the "Cities in France" category. --В²C ☎ 19:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what WP:CATVER says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {{Category unsourced}} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Yes, the categorization must be verifiable. That means someone willing to verify it, can verify it from "information in the article". It doesn't mean someone unwilling to verify it can just remove the categorization. --В²C ☎ 19:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read the info at WP:CATVER including "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Your interpretation of verifiable is not there. MarnetteD|Talk 19:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? It is abundantly "clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories", which I explained in my first comment in this section. Clear to anyone who bothers to read the information, that is. Of course it won't be clear to someone who doesn't read the article and is unfamiliar with the topic. --В²C ☎ 20:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying it is not clear to you from verifiable information in the article that this series is both an American spy thriller and an American spy drama? What would make that clear to you?

By the way, your last revert was with this summary: "what part of sources in the article don't you get and no the ones on the talk page don't cover these". How does a source that explicitly refers to the series as SPY series not cover this? What do you think is missing? --В²C ☎ 20:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The word "spy" is used 26 times in the article. The string "America" gets over 200 hits in the article. 46 hits for "drama". There are six hits for "thriller", including this SOURCED quote from a review: "The Americans is a spy thriller of the highest order, with evocative period touches and strong chemistry between its leads." Again, no one is obligated to point this out to you. That's on you as part of verifying that the claim about these cats is verifiable. --В²C ☎ 20:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Or, let me put it this way, if that's easier. What at Homeland_(TV_series) satisfies you that that program fits in these categories? --В²C ☎ 22:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The genres need sources. Currently there are none so even the two that are in the current lede shouldn't have categories but that is as may be. Just find verifiable sources and proceed from there. WP:OTHERSTUFF is why what is in other articles is not an argument for what is n this onw. MarnetteD|Talk 23:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

But B2C did cite sources above. If you don't think they support the categorization, you should explain why. It seems highly intuitive to me that a review that says "The Americans is a spy thriller" would support placement in a "Spy thriller" category... Colin M (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin M. I honestly can't figure out if MarnetteD is messing around or is just not being clear about what they believe is needed here. But in the spirit of AGF I can only say that saying stuff like "genres need sources; currently there are none" without explaining why the dozens of verifiable sources referenced in the article supporting "American spy thriller" and "American spy drama" don't qualify is not helpful. --В²C ☎ 23:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I wasn't using Homeland as part of my argument. I was hoping you could point to something in it, or in any article that you believe meets whatever you think is required for this categorization, to help others understand what that is. That's what I meant by "if that's easier"... If that's easier for you to help us understand what you're looking for. --В²C ☎ 00:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Reference 26 in the article is a NY Times article entitled The Spy Who Married Me: Keri Russell and Matthew Rhys on ‘The Americans’ which literally describes the show as "a spy thriller/domestic drama". That's a verifiable reference in the article. --В²C ☎ 00:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

For the record, under The_Americans#Season_1 is the following referenced/verifiable quote:

• "The Americans is a spy thriller of the highest order, with evocative period touches and strong chemistry between its leads."

The lead has a referenced/verifiable citation about the series winning awards in the drama category:

• two Critics' Choice Television Award for Best Drama Series Awards.

Surely these are enough to justify categorization in the spy thriller and spy drama categories. It's inappropriate to revert such categorization without even a cursory check of the article which would verify they were appropriate. --В²C ☎ 17:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

You might try adding them to the lede as it only mentions two of the three genres in the hybrid cat. Though if they are in places that you like having them in the body of the article then feel free to restore things to the version you prefer. MarnetteD|Talk 01:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

While not explicitly related to this dispute...and I'm not sure I want to wade into this beyond to say that I don't believe IMDb should have been used to source genres per WP:RS/IMDb, which may be why that edit was reverted (it also originated with an editor who had so many issues with proper categorization that they were blocked for a time)...it may be worth noting that the verifiability of genres and the best way of handling it is currently under discussion at the Talk page for MOS:FILM, and that discussions like this push me more in the direction of "don't even list a genre without a citation supporting it". DonIago (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

But where must that citation be? In this case the article is riddled with citations supporting each of these three genres (American spy, thriller, drama). I mean, surely a citation for a "best drama" award qualifies the drama, right? Quotes from multiple reviews referring to the main characters as spies qualifies it for "spy", I would think. Same with "thriller" (which almost always goes with "spy drama" anyway - can you even have a "spy drama" which is not a "thriller"?) That's where I was perplexed in this case. --В²C ☎ 16:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's a clear consensus on this currently (hence the discussion at MOS), but for myself, if I see "foo" listed as a genre for the film, and I doubt that the film really is a "foo" film, and I'm inclined to argue the point, I would look through the article to see whether "foo" appears anywhere in the article in the context of describing the film thusly, and if so, whether such text is followed by a reasonable citation. If I couldn't find "foo", I would then most likely delete it, though I might CN-tag it instead depending on the circumstances. This could get more complicated if if the article text genre doesn't exactly match the lead genre, but if the two aren't explicitly related then that may be when it's time to start a discussion. If nothing else, you'll at least be able to build a precedent going forward.

Given the way this whole subject has been going though, my personal preference is swerving in the direction that each genre in the lead should be immediately followed by a citation, because there's far too much focus on fewer than five words going on here. DonIago (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "each genre in the lead", and how does that relate to each genre the film is categorized in? Are you saying to put a film in a genre cat, that genre has to be mentioned in the lead, and cited appropriately right there? If so, that's a much bigger hurdle than what WP:CATVER requires. --В²C ☎ 17:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean that, hypothetically, if you called a film a "gothic tech-noir thriller" in the lead, then you would need citations in the lead to support each of those classifications. Categories must be supported by an article's verifiable content, so citing them in the lead would satisfy any appropriate categorizations. And I wasn't speaking to what the situation currently is, I was speaking to my personal feelings on the matter given the way genre debates seem to be popping up with distressing regularity these days. DonIago (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

No, citing in the lead is generally frowned upon per WP:CITELEAD, unless the info is likely to be disputed. Film genres (certainly the one or two major ones that apply) should not be contentious. Now if someone insists on laundry-listing 4 or more of them, well, beyond the issue of "should they be cited?" is the whole problem of "the lead is a summary", not a place to list every possible category the film may fall into. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD is a guideline, and in my experience film genres are frequently being revised, which I would consider a form of dispute. If including a cite immediately after the genre reduces the amount of editing and bickering over the genres, I'm all for it. DonIago (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

But in a case like this, where you'd be hard pressed to find a cited source that does not immediately verify the categories in question are appropriate, how is the editor supposed to respond to reverts of the category inclusions? --В²C ☎ 18:14, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BURDEN, if they're being removed due to verifiability concerns, I would re-add them with citations. If they are still removed, then it's time to ask the removing editor directly to explain their rationale. DonIago (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

While I have little opinion on the most appropriate categorisation, WP:SYNTH is clear that sources should not be combined to make up your own genre names. In addition, MOS:SEAOFBLUE indicates we should avoid successive blue links which give the appearance of a single link; it was the presence of the odd blue-linked term "period spy thriller", which doesn't seem to appear in RS, that drew my attention. Cambial foliage❧ 21:48, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

References

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Americans/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Ktkvtsh (talk · contribs) 19:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 13:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article using the template below. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ktkvtsh, feel free to make changes and respond to issues as I continue to review the article, no need to wait until I'm finished with a full review. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Two big things left - prose review (for me to do) and 3b (breadth) for the nominator. I'll hold off on the prose review until the new material has been incorporated and check the sources there as well. Hopefully we can get this one to GA pretty soon! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for your patience! Ktkvtsh (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No major uncited passages or other issues. Pass.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Mostly reliable journalistic sources and trade publications (Vox, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, etc) Is TVLine a reliable source? Also, #9 (Laurie Holden) is a dead link, although archived - please mark the original link as dead or find a replacement. #13 (Canadian Press) should be adjusted to indicate it's a newsagency article via the Toronto Star #14 (DirectTV) the link leads to a generic page Is Collider a reliable source? How does #32 (Tweet) prove the concept that all writers remained with the show throughout? Strikes me as WP:OR. Similar with #35, though this one is better as he directly states she wrote an episode. Still, a secondary source would be much preferred. Upper West Side blog can't be regarded as reliable, replace with a better source. #46 (Newsday) link 404s and should be fixed or marked as dead #47 (SILive) should probably have the Staten Island Advance mentioned somewhere in the cite. Onlocationvacations has a deadlink for the original. Is it a reliable source? #49 (Den of Geek) is missing the author/interviewer Is TV Fanatic a reliable source? #51 (Network Ten) redirects to a generic page, fix or mark as dead #56 (ITV) link is similarly dead, fix or mark as dead. In general please check that the original links work. I know almost all of them are archived, but if they 404 or redirect, they should be marked as such (there's a parameter to do so in the citation template). Is TVShowsonDVD.com a reliable source? Is citing sellers/marketplaces like Amazon or Blu-ray.com typical for DVD releases? #95 (Brunner) a link would be great if findable Is The Playlist a reliable source? There's no consensus on reliability for Business Insider (WP:BI) but the way it's used here for critical opinion I think it's fine. AGF that remaining minor issues will be taken care of, pass source review. Nice work by nominator. —Ganesha811 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Pass, issue mentioned above addressed re: tweet, no other problems.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig flags a number of longer quotes; no copyvios there as they are attributed. However the descriptions in this passage are borrowed and copyvio and should be rephrased asap: as experience with Russian plays and was an accent coach. General Zhukov was played by a Polish actor. Annet Mahendru, who played Nina, has a Russian mother and speaks six languages. Hold for manual spot check.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Pass, no problems.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The reception sections by season are generally fine but perhaps slightly overdetailed. Is there any academic writing on The Americans or more in-depth work that could be used to provide a perspective on all seasons together? I think it might be worth combining the Seasons 1-5 reception into 1 slightly shorter section, and pulling out some material to start a new 'Themes' subsection that talks about the series as a whole. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC) I agree. Will work on this. Thank you. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)  Done and I will work on developing a themes section in my sandbox. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit wars, issues on talk page have been settled, no expansions/rewrites in progress, pass.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	One fair use, one CC2.0 (Flickr), both fine. Checked newly added images, all fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Just two images is a little sparse for an article of this length, but I get why it might be tough to find others. Still, any additions would be helpful if possible. Issue addressed, pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

Comment: For images, would images of some of the actors under the cast and characters section be appropriate for 6b? If so, I can go ahead and do that. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

2b

@Ganesha811 I am working on fixing issues you mention in 2b. Will you be able to use my detailed edit summaries on the article to see what is done or should I mention it all here? Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit summaries are fine, you can also come back here and just say "all done" or "all done except this one where I disagree with you" etc etc. It's a flexible process. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

You can also reply directly within the table, or cross off items as you address them, whatever works best for you. —Ganesha811 (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Collider reliable?

While Collider is mostly opinionated in various articles, the article used for The Americans is just about entirely interview and gives full question and answer quotes. While not every article from Collider could be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia, I believe this specific article can. Ktkvtsh (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Sounds fine, thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

6b Images

Multiple images have been added. Please let me know if it is not enough or too many. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The number is fine but I would make them smaller and combine them into one or two multiple image templates. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

TVShowsonDVD reliable?

Yes, I believe TVShowsonDVD.com is reliable here and gives accurate information regarding the show being released on DVD. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you expand on this? Why is it reliable per Wikipedia's standards? Thanks. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe TVShowsOnDVD.com is a reliable source per Wikipedia standards because it was well-regarded for its accurate and comprehensive reporting on television series releases on DVD and Blu-ray. The site operated with strong industry connections and was even affiliated with TV Guide from 2007 until it ceased operations in 2018, making its historical content a trustworthy reference for information up to that date. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair! Thanks for explaining. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

2b Tweets

Removed two tweets. They statements were both double sourced so removing the tweets won't leave them unsourced. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

2d

I rephrased the portion mentioned here. Ktkvtsh (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

TV Fanatic reliable?

I think that TV Fanatic can be seen as reliable here as the source is a word for word interview. I feel that this is the same case as with Collider. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, that's acceptable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

DVD release dates

I admit I am not entirely sure about what would be reliable for dvd release dates. I found this site here. I wanted to say Amazon is reliable, but I see now that the dates on the source and the date in the article don't match.

The entire home release section is sourced by Amazon or Bluray. Do you recommend I remove the entire section or would dvdreleasedates.com work? Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend removing it for now. If there are reliable secondary sources that mention the show came out on DVD, that could be mentioned in a general way. In the end it's not the most important detail. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

3b (reception)

@Ktkvtsh: As someone who has been editing this article since its inception (over a decade), I find your trim of the reception section to be absurd; you turned a 2000+ word section into literally just over 100 words. You deleted roughly 70 references from reliable sources and completely eliminated the accolades section, and left the reception section with just 4 references. The series spanned 6 seasons and 75 episodes, its reception section shouldn't just be 100 words. The GA reviewer wrote the section is "slightly overdetailed" and that could it be a "slightly shorter section". The original version of the section could be trimmed, but what you did was beyond overkill and detrimental to the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts I will undo my edit. Can you work on trimming it down? My apologies. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I have more some free time coming up in the next few days, so I'll definitely get it done then. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)