Jump to content

Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

A properly uploaded image which is properly tagged is a clear case of fair use (see Bill Graham Archives vs Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006)), and although incompatible for Wikimedia Commons, it should be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Fair Use in specific cases is explicitly permitted in Wikipedia, as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Fair-use_images.
Regarding jurisdiction, English Wikipedia permits usage of copyrighted work, as per Wikipedia:File copyright tags: "Commons does not allow fair use material, but non-free can still be used on the English Wikipedia under certain conditions.".. Additionally, in the specific case of "The Haunting of Hill House" and other promotional materials, it also falls under Fair Use as per Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free. I have uploaded a new image to Wikipedia and tagged it properly, as described in the [guidelines]. Ferkijel (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Except that you manually replaced a fair use (uploaded 24 October 2018), legitimate screenshot of the title card in the infobox with a promotional photo file published in Netflix's Facebook account. There was no need for replacing the screenshot file of the show's title card — which is what a television series infobox should contain, if possible. Also, Wikipedia Commons deletes files when they do not meet the appropriate criteria, and something about the deleted .png file didn't. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:36, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing sections and location of citations

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television is the guide for articles about TV programs, how they are constructed, and what they should contain.
The article is missing a // Development and production // section and a // Release // section. It's also not normal for citations to be included in the Cast and characters section, and all of the current ones are about actors joining the production -- which belongs in content about development.
If no one else beats me to the punch, I intend to add the missing sections and transfer the citations about actors to support information about the production of the series. Pyxis Solitary yak 07:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sections and page layout

TV articles have policies and guidelines that need to be followed by all editors. The guide for this article is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television (aka WP:MOSTV and MOS:TV). The personal preferences of individual editors have no relevance in how articles are created and edited.
On 04:18, 31 October 2018‎, I edited the page to adhere more closely with the layout of television articles. This included the creation of the "Development and production" section for content about the creation of the series. A second season in any television article would be a subsection or separate paragraph in development and production, and comments by the series creator about the possibility of an additional season falls under the umbrella of production.
In contradiction and without providing a summary, User:Sebastian James changed the layout on 17:49, 31 October 2018 and also increased the length of the Plot in defiance of the hidden message advising editors that the length exceeded the maximum wordage and could not be increased, and the reason why.
I reverted this change on 06:28, 1 November 2018, then went back into the article and corrected grammatical errors and a section title.
After this edit I left a message on User:Sebastian James's Talk page advising him that his edit was not only disruptive, but he also could not increase the plot. His response was to delete my message and summarize it with a personal insult directed at me as the summary.
He then changed the article's layout again to his preference on 16:37, 1 November 2018‎.
I returned section titles to the former and re-positioned Development and production to precede the Episodes section on 02:44, 2 November 2018‎.

At this point, further changes to the article's layout should be made by consensus. Input by other editors regarding the layout and MOS:TV guide are welcome. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

You, a person who thinks "on the summer of 1982...", "completed a suicide" etc. are grammatically correct, are also not able to see edit summaries. The section you created consists of insufficient information (just mentions the places that some scenes were filmed at, suspicious sources in need of better sources), there is no official information about season two, so you can't call it "season two" (and you call it Incorrect section title...) These are the only issues. You should check your grammar first, then we will see if you are capable of recommending WP:MoS. Sebastian James (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Now we know that the summary for your 16:37, 1 November 2018 edit was a message for me.
However, this is the condition of the article @ 15:20, 1 November 2018, before your 16:37 edit. Do you understand the meaning of the word "timeline"? If you do, then why did you not see that what you got bent out of shape about did not exist in the article? Did you not see these edits: @ 06:29, 1 November 2018 - grammar and @ 06:43, 1 November 2018 - section title+grammar?
When you say an editor has done this or that, you need to show what it is you're talking about. And your edit history on this article shows that you've deliberately ignored MOS more than once. A "my way or the highway" disposition is unconstructive and anti-cooperative, and anathema to the goals of Wikipedia. Every time anyone indulges in hubris, they lose ground to stand on. Pyxis Solitary yak 03:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Do not pathetically change the subject toward one issue only. You did revert my edits and replaced them with an old revision made by another user and then you actually fixed them. You have to check the edits before reverting. The issues have been corrected already, I can't figure out why you wrote this message. The history of this article only shows that I updated critical reception section, fixed the grammar and added another section titled "Future". And yet, you accuse me. So, I won't look or reply to your nonsense anymore. Sebastian James (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
The issue has been one and the same: your undoing the changes made to the page layout -- changes that were based on MOS:TV and explained in the summaries -- and increasing the wordage of the plot description when it was already maxed (with a hidden message included providing the reason why it could not be further increased).
On 17:49, 31 October 2018 you made the following edit: section title, increased plot, and undid the updated page layout and titles of other sections.
On 06:28, 1 November 2018 I reverted this edit to return the page to the former layout. Then I went into the editing screen and re-corrected grammatical errors 1 and 2 that were also restored when the page revert was performed.
Your undoing a page layout that brought the article closer to the guidelines of MOS:TV was not a one-time edit: the first time was your 17:49 edit, then you did it again on 16:37, 1 November 2018. After seeing that you had undone the layout again, I opened this discussion.
Your statement that "The history of this article only shows that I updated critical reception section, fixed the grammar and added another section titled "Future"." is untrue. Pyxis Solitary yak 05:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Adding verbatim content

Some editors are not familiar with Wikipedia policies.
The statement "it is a modern re-imagining of...." was added to the lead section on 17:04, 10 November 2018. This phrasing was published in the 2017 Deadline Hollywood article "Netflix Orders TV Series Adaptation Of ‘The Haunting of Hill House’ Book From Mike Flanagan, Amblin TV & Paramount TV":

"The project is a modern re-imagining of....".

After the lead was edited, with Wikipedia policy provided in the edit summary, the same word-for-word statement was restored on 21:48, 17 November 2018.
Verbatim text from an external source is only acceptable in Wikipedia when it is a quotation, appearing within quotation marks, identified, and source provided. Paraphrasing is also not permitted. Except for quoted material, adding verbatim content to an article is considered a copyright violation. Wikipedia may tolerate bold edits, but it does not tolerate copyright infringement. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
To keep track of this copyright matter and for future reference: the phrase "it is a modern re-imagining of...." was

Pyxis Solitary yak 13:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

You should stop being a pleonastic, and look to the edits and their summaries first. Sebastian James (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Premise & Cast

Since this is now an anthology series, should the cast for Hill House be listed under a subheading of Season 1? Same with the premise? --Bicam3ralMind (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Once there's a cast and premiere for Season 2, yes. -- /Alex/21 21:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Second season

Since the series has been renewed for a second season and is now an anthology, how should we handle this article? I'm thinking, either:

  • 1. This article is renamed The Haunting (TV series) and it includes information from both seasons

or

  • 2. It stays as is and we include info about season 2, until there's enough information (cast, episodes, production, etc.) and it's then spun-off into its own article, titled The Haunting of Bly Manor.

Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I say definitely the first option. The series is now titled The Haunting; if the article can be split into separate season articles, it can (although there's almost no content to support that at the moment), but we should just treat it as a regular show and include all information here for now. -- /Alex/21 23:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
The series has not been retitled "The Haunting". The shorthand "Haunting" has been used for marketing the second season, but the title of Season 2 is not "The Haunting: Bly Manor". And Season 1 has not been renamed by Netflix, Amblin, and Paramount as "The Haunting: Hill House". The official name of Season 2 is The Haunting of Bly Manor. Season 1 remains The Haunting of Hill House. Changing the article title was done without consensus. And even if a handful of editors had gone along with changing the original title of this article, it would still be WP:OR because it would not be supported with reliable sources. Additionally, regarding titles of articles WP:UCRN states: "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." I don't need to provide a links-bomb of all the sources that exist where "The Haunting of Hill House" is the name used for the series before the concept of an anthology got the green-light as the second season -- and the first season continues to be called "The Haunting of Hill House". See discussion below for the best way to handle Season 2/"The Haunting of Bly Manor". Pyxis Solitary yak 09:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article

When did editors of this TV article decide that its title was going to be different than the official name of the series, The Haunting of Hill House, and the multitude of sources (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) about it that confirm the name?  What possible reason was given for going against Netflix, Amblin Television, and Paramount Television?
The title change violates WP:NOR. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not the editor who moved the page, obviously, and in fact I've had virtually no prior involvement in the article — but it's still fairly obvious that the page move happened soon after a second season, to be titled The Haunting of Bly Manor, was announced. So, basically, somebody original-researched a new umbrella title for the overall anthology even though there's no almost no actual content about Bly Manor yet beyond very brief acknowledgements that it's happening.
Instead, I'm going to suggest the alternative that this should more or less follow the American Horror Story template, where we do not cram everything about the entire series into one article: there is still a basic overview article about the overall anthology at the umbrella title, but all of the content that's specific to a particular season is in a separate season sub-article titled with the actual title of that particular season: American Horror Story: Murder House, American Horror Story: Asylum, American Horror Story: Coven, and on and so forth. But, of course, at this point, there's basically nothing we can say or source about Bly Manor yet except that it's been announced, so there's not yet grounds for a standalone article about it.
Accordingly, the way forward I propose is this:
  1. Move this article back to The Haunting of Hill House.
  2. Start a separate article about The Haunting of Bly Manor when the time comes, most likely in late 2019 or early 2020, that there's actually sourceable stuff to say about it.
  3. By the time a Bly Manor splitout is justified, there will most likely be a clearer indication of what the reliably sourceable overall umbrella title for the project is: whether that's The Haunting, Mike Flanagan's The Haunting, Netflix Horror Story or something else. So then either we can split out an overview article about the project as a whole, which would cover the general aspects that are common to both Hill House and Bly Manor but link to the season-specific articles for season-specific content, or try to figure out what else to do if there's still no clearly sourceable umbrella title — it is in fact entirely possible that we will just have to treat Hill House and Bly Manor as separate standalone series, which crosslink each other as related but have no parent article at all because there's no reliably sourceable umbrella title for a parent article to be given, and thus both just get listed directly in the disambiguation page for The Haunting.
But for the time being, the existing article should rightly be moved back to The Haunting of Hill House, since as of right now that's clearly the expected and sourced title of the thing we can actually write and source actual content about. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Unlike FX which titled its series American Horror Story (1 2) with an ancillary name for each season, Netflix has not titled its series "The Haunting", nor has it announced that The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor will in the future be known under the series name The Haunting. Therefore, I:
     • support moving this article back to The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)
     • support the creation of a The Haunting of Bly Manor standalone article.
I suggest that a  ==Season 2==  section be added to this article which explains that the series became an anthology after Season 1, provides some information about the second season, and includes a  {{Main|The Haunting of Bly Manor}}  template link to the article. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

(Btw and fyi, there's a paranormal drama anthology series called A Haunting 1.) Pyxis Solitary yak 03:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose the creation of separate articles. Support if they are separate season articles, but not separate series articles. They are separate seasons, not separate series. Also: [1]: "The Haunting Continues in 2020". 193.115.82.55 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That's using the word haunting as a verb, not as a title. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
And you know this with certainty how? 193.115.83.179 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Consider that there's a difference between "Stuff being haunted continues in 2019" and "The series which has been officially titled The Haunting continues in 2019". The onus is on you to prove that your source means the latter before it constitutes a valid reason against the move request. It's certainly not inherently obvious that it means the latter rather than the former, so you need better proof than that. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Are verbs often capitalized? No. When are they? When they are used in a title. Now, for your personal definition of the sentence? 193.115.83.179 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
By that logic, that link makes the title of this series "The Haunting Continues" — because the word Continues is also capitalized in that same sentence, yet is somehow not part of what you're arguing that link confirms the title to be. You can't cherrypick just the convenient parts of a sentence, discard the inconvenient parts, and pretend that's a mic drop: capitalization doesn't prove that it's the "official title" if the next word in the sentence, after the end of what you're claiming it proves as the "official title", is still capitalized too. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Good point. "Continues" should be noted in the title as well. Cheers for that. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, no. "The Haunting Continues" is even more clearly not the "umbrella title" for the whole series — it's just marketing bumf written in marketing style, not evidence of the title per se. There is a style of PR/marketing writing out there in the world, in which words get overcapitalized completely without regard to standard English capitalization rules — companies' or organizations' own press releases about themselves, for example, will capitalize every word in a person's job title ("Account Representative", "Chief Financial Officer", "Associate Professor", "Executive Producer", etc.) — but obviously we don't replicate that style of writing here, because we follow standard capitalization rules and not companies' own marketing bumf. So what is or isn't capitalized in a piece of marketing writing isn't proof of what is or isn't the title — what we would need to see is one or more pieces of reliable source journalism, such as an article in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, which clearly uses The Haunting as an umbrella title that encompasses both Hill House and Bly Manor. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather floor the brakes on presuming an umbrella name based on journalistic writing. As a former newswriter in broadcast news (which also included entertainment news), and a reporter for news wire services, it was common to refer to TV shows with keywords after their names were established (for example: Sabrina the Teenage Witch name was stated first, then it would be referred to as "Sabrina", then the full name stated again before ending the news story). It's still done today. The umbrella name, if there were to be one, should come from the mothership, which for THoHH and THoBM is Netflix. Per WP:UCRN: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and WP:NAMECHANGES: "give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." Pyxis Solitary yak 03:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy includes article titles. For how to title an article see WP:COMMONNAME. For when a title can be changed see WP:NAMECHANGES. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Neither of those relate to the splitting of articles. The Haunting of Bly Manor is a separate season, not a separate series, and hence should only be split to a season article, same as the first season, The Haunting of Hill House. My comment did not relate to the titling of articles, but the splitting of them. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
In case you haven't actually read the entire contents of this discussion: Netflix has not announced that the umbrella name for their series is "The Haunting". And in the requested move discussion below, you state: "Support series as The Haunting". Pyxis Solitary yak 02:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Please do not modify my comments. And you have given no support or basis for separating the articles out into separate series articles, rather than separate season articles. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Your comment was not "modified". Its content was not changed. But since you seem to be unaware of Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages: see WP:TALKO > Fixing format errors: "include fixing indentation levels". As it stands, you did not respond to anyone's comment. You can, of course, create your own discussion topic.
You also appear to not comprehend the comments made by other editors. Additionally, you also seem to not be able to fully grasp Wikipedia policies ... again: WP:OR. Read it. And WP:TITLE. Read it. Read them both word-for--word. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of TALKO: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. I have objected - do you comprehend that? I've provided a source for the title, direct from Netflix, and you still have no basis to split a season to a separate series article. Do try to keep up, buddy-o. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 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 back to original title, per consensus in the two discussions on this page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The Haunting (TV series) → The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) – On 21 February 2019, The Haunting of Hill House was renewed for a second season as an anthology, with The Haunting of Bly Manor as the name for the second season. On the same date, two editors discussed changing title of this article. The following day, The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) page title was changed to The Haunting (TV series). On 4 May 2019, I discovered that the article's title had been changed. As I pointed out in my comment in the "Changing the name of the article" discussion, Netflix "has not titled its series "The Haunting", nor has it announced that The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor will in the future be known under the series name The Haunting." Neither have series producers Amblin Television and Paramount Television. The policy for naming articles states preference for: "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". The policy for changing the name of an article states: "give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced ... If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well." Reliable sources (for example, The New York Times, Screen Rant, TV Guide, Radio Times, Hypable) not only continue to use The Haunting of Hill House when reporting on the series, but a name change to "The Haunting" has not been announced by the network and producers that decide what name their series is going to be known by. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - the title should match the sources, and the content should be largely limited to the "Hill House" episodes. Time will tell if the industry considers this a "season" or a standalone limited series. For now, treating them as two separate series is the safer option. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
There are a ton of sources using "The Haunting of Hill House," including the main source, Netflix. What is there using "The Haunting" - a tweet? That very tweet is from "The Haunting of Hill House" and there is no twitter account for "The Haunting" or "The Haunting of Bly Manor." Guessing about what sources might do in the future is conjecture, right now sources are almost universally using the original name. I support the move back to the original name.--LowRise (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In re "series as The Haunting": see WP:OR. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Netflix already describes the series continuing in 2020 as The Haunting, as previously stated, and the opposing comment has no basis. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No. It doesn't. You appear to be unaware of the use of key words in promotional language. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
And that is your personal opinion on the topic. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
In the discussion above, User:Bearcat states that the word "haunting" is being used "as a verb, not as a title." I've stated that it's a keyword being used to promote the forthcoming season. On its official Twitter account for THoHH, Netflix advertised the new second season as: "A new Haunting is coming."
Whether the use of the word "haunting" is how you see it, or whether it is being used as a verb or a keyword, at this point in time there is no definitive announcement by Netflix (and series producers) that the series has been officially renamed "Haunting "  or  "The Haunting ". Pyxis Solitary yak 05:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Nothing to support the use "as a verb, not as a title". 193.115.83.179 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Haunting_of_Hill_House_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1100499531"