Talk:War & Peace (2016 TV series)

County of origin

There appears to be an edit war between MyNameIsASDF and Drmargi. with neither party discussing at this talk page. The only way you'll resolve the dispute is by bringing in other editors, and debating via edit summaries are not the way to achieve that. As far as I can see, Drmargi is mistaken in claiming that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television offers any advice whatsoever about determining country of origin - although I would be pleased to revise my opinion if he can quote the relevant part of MOS:TV. On the other hand, MyNameIsASDF suggests that "The Weinsteins funded little" - can you supply a source for that, please, as it would be fairly conclusive in showing that the production was predominantly British? Thanks --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It's really very simple: the series was produced by The Weinstein Company (billed first) and BBC Wales (billed second) in collaboration with BBC Worldwide (based in Los Angeles). That makes it British-American. ASDF claims it's solely British based on an unsourced contention that Weinstein "funded little." Somewhere in the miasma of policies is one that states that the national origin of principle production companies determines the country of origin. There are also Americans in the cast, notably the male lead, which debunks his/her contention the cast is solely British, although that's not a factor in determining country of origin. --Drmargi (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many examples of other British Productions that, while partially funded by American companies, is considered predominantly British and is never referred to as UK-US co production. Examples include And Then There Were None, Downton Abbey and Mr. Selfridge. Even films, including Gosford Park, The King's Speech, Bridget Jones' Diary and it's sequel, and Love Actually. So what exactly makes this show a British-American serial and the other aforementioned ones not? Also it aired first in the UK, and was produced by three BBC-owned production companies. --MyNameIsASDF (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@MyNameIsASDF and Drmargi: it's interesting to note that a month after this discussion, you're still edit warring over this. Maybe a third opinion is in order? clpo13_(talk) 18:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent to the above there has been extended discussion here, here and here about the nationality of television series, with particular reference to British series such as this one that are financially supported by a US partner in return for distribution rights and some involvement in production. Consequentially the television MoS now rests upon direct referencing and the exercise of creative control as the determinants of the nationality (country of origin).

There does seem to be a range of sources, including reliable American ones, that describe this as a British production and/or recognise that the BBC had the leading role, and there appears little doubt that the creative control sat with the British team. Accordingly under the revised MoS the appropriate resolution is to credit the UK as the country of origin and also credit the supporting role played by TWC. MapReader (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You've applied your principal re: Masterpiece without sources to support that Weinstein Co. "supported" rather than commissioning the production. Provide sources before you revert. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Reception

It seems the 'Reception' section is very incomplete. It reports only very positive reviews, yet at the time there was a mass of negative reports in the press over it's over sexualization of the story (putting in sex scenes that "Tolstoy forgot") and the rather inaccurate and shallow rendering of the books plot. Perhaps someone should expand that section. I may do so myself in the next few days. Alan162 (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC on infobox image

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this as consensus is clear: Title card preferred. Softlavender (talk) 02:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

Which fair-use image (shown below) should be used for the infobox:

DVD cover: [1]

or

Title card:

File:War and peace 2016 tv series titlecard.jpg

-- 06:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• DVD cover. The DVD cover more immediately and specifically identifies this specific program to the reader and assures them that they are in the right place. Since there have been numerous adaptions, and numerous screen adaptations, of War and Peace, and numerous other items called "War and Peace" or "War & Peace", this is essential, in my opinion. Softlavender (talk) 06:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Title card, per WP:TVIMAGE. Intertitles/title cards are used for the main series article, DVD covers are only used for individual season articles. DVD covers should only be used on the main article if neither an intertitle or promotional is available. (I'm not watching this page; ping me if you require my attention). Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

"DVD covers are only used for individual season articles". This is incorrect. Not only that, this program is a miniseries: there are no seasons, only the one miniseries. Softlavender (talk) 06:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I think I requested that you ping me if you commented on my opinion. And in that case, the DVD cover should not be used at all on this particular article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: In point of fact there is nothing about seasons in WP:TVIMAGE; I think you are thinking of "episodes". In my mind WP:TVIMAGE has little applicability to miniseries and TV films, which are individual one-off items, not long-running series over multiple years. In my mind the reason DVD covers can be problematical for TV series (as opposed to miniseries and TV movies) is because the DVD covers are different for each season; therefore there is no single "DVD cover". If DVD covers are OK for episodes, they are obviously OK for TV offerings where there is only one program (e.g. a miniseries or TV movie). I think this needs to be addressed at MOS:TV, which seems to be geared almost exclusively to TV series, not miniseries or TV movies. Obviously if video covers (like album covers) are fair-use and permitted by Wikipedia policy, and used extensively in Wikipedia infoboxes, in my mind there is no reason not to use one except where it would be confusing (as with a TV series that had many seasons and many DVD covers). Softlavender (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I posted my opinion, you posts yours. It's all I have to say on the matter. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Title card, per Alex. The intertitle is the established image to be used, it's a more appropriately sized image, and it's a more attractive image. It's the job of the narrative, not the image, to assure readers they're in the right place, not the use of the DVD cover image (and frankly, I'm not convinced it will do what you think it will.) --Drmargi (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TVIMAGE, a title card or poster are both equally ideal. The poster is available here: [2] (and larger elsewhere), but no one has uploaded it yet. It could be added to the list of options at the top of the RfC. Softlavender (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Titlecard/intertile The dvd cover is advertising, conveys a censorship rating that may or not apply in all territories. If a cast image is wanted then that could be added to the cast or production section.REVUpminster (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair-use infobox images are not advertising. The image clearly conveys the specific production involved rather than a generic title. There is no "censorship rating" -- there is however a motion picture rating system for the country of release, just as all video covers generally provide, and just as there is other standard video-cover information. Softlavender (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Title card, whilst fair use images are acceptable they "are" advertising after a fashion and the title card is a less contensious image! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• DVD cover – As Softlavender said, it more clearly identifies the series in a question unlike the rather plain title card. Poster would also work. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
• Title card The DVD cover includes promotional and advertising content, such as laudatory blurb ("Breathtaking" says The Daily Telegraph, etc), typical of DVD covers. The title card presents a clean, clearly identifiable reference. There is no potential for "confusion" here, since the article's title itself is as specific as it can get: This War & Peace version is the 2016 TV series. -The Gnome (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Title card - Summoned by bot. While both images could be used, the title card is more neutral than the promotional DVD cover. Meatsgains (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Title card as the DVD can be released & re-released with different covers. The title card generally would not change. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 19:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Number of Episodes

The wiki states there are 6 episodes. SBS on Demand is hosting the series and they have 8 episodes - and from the description of the last couple episodes it goes beyond the story described in the 6th episode on this page. --MyGodIcannotBelieveIforgotmylogin (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the SBS website they are airing the episodes at 42 minutes each. The BBC aired them at 60 minutes per ep. The DVD sets in both the UK and US have six episodes as well. So SBS has reedited them for some reason. There is no new material in the SBS showings so I don't see a need to change the article at this time. MarnetteD|Talk 22:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)