This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.
A response section needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be expanded. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.
Apparently, the old url http://www.syfy.com/human returns a 404 and there no mention of Being Human in Syfy's official pages. I have removed the outdated link until they get it back up. -- Marcus1979 (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Currently there are references in the Main Cast section that make reference to the BBC series Being Human. Specifically the naming of the the character "Adian" as homage to the actor who plays the vampire on the BBC version and discussion regarding the differences between characters Herrick and Bishop. Perhaps these tidbits need not be included in the Main Cast section, and be collected in a section devoted to differences/ similarities between the two series? It could also be that more of the article needs to be fleshed out before these links be re-introduced. Generic1487 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Considering that we have very little to go on about the characters apart from the two aired episodes and these "tidbits", I don't see the harm in their presence there. (But then, I would say that, as I found the sources and added that material.) Any more sourced material would, of course, be welcome, but I don't see an advantage in removing the connections to the UK series. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually, on second thought, a section on the process of adaptation is a good idea, and I've added one (with what sources I could find). I hope it's not too disproportionate in relation to the rest of the article (which is still a bit skeletal). I am, of course, open to editing, but I hope that any potential imbalance could be addressed by other editors adding to other sections rather than reducing that one too severely. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Move-warring and edit warring. The article is once again protected from moving, and is protected from all editing for five days in an attempt to force discussion. If that doesn't work the next step is liberally handing out blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
While not involved in the actual discussion, I originally requested protection for this because all the page moves where getting ridiculous. It was then unprotected by Josiah Rowe with the reason "I think consensus has been reached; let's see if it's respected", that was, in retrospect, the wrong move, but I sincerely believe this full page protection is excessive and unnecessary. The issue is with page moves not page content, blocks etc. are supposed to be for prevention, not punishment. This full page article protection does not serve a purpose but to punish contributors to the page, move protection would prevent the issue at hand just fine, just like it did previous. Xeworlebi(talk) 12:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
as much as I have desire to agree with it being too much I do actually support it. The content of the article and infobox which have any mention that state or imply anything other than the show being purely American are vulnerable to warring. Xeworlebi, you might not have been into the skins remake but just look at the page history there to see what might be coming to this show's article. I just had to bring up that both are made in Canada by Canadian companies and well for what you see here is just a tiny bit of what has been at skins. Writing via my phone it is too tricky to paste diffs. Josiah didn't expect the dispute at skins to come here. The Queer As Folk remake is the other show with this disambiguation and maybe added to this move-war. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 16:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
This show is not Canadian. I have no idea how many times I have to tell everyone this. This is FALSE information. How is it that EVERY British remake is suddenly Canadian? I will not let this article stay the way it is. After the protection is taken off I will continue with my edits to help this article. This is so ridiculous. I'm getting the feeling this article is practically being run by Canadians. Am I right here? CloudKade11 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
No, you're not, this show is made by a Canadian company in association with an American company, this info is not false, it is made my Muse Entertainment Enterprises in association with Zodiak USA, the end credits of the show show this. Syfy buys broadcasting rights from the production company to broadcast this show in the U.S. just like every country does for 99% of the television series. Syfy has the annoying habit of calling random shows "originals" just because they broadcast them. They even called Merlin a "Syfy original", which, for your information, is a show made by the BBC, airs a year earlier in the UK, and even the first season of the show was broadcasted on NBC and Syfy only picked it up for the second series. How exactly is this information false? Xeworlebi(talk) 19:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's a bit much to protect the entire page. I agree that it should be move-protected until a consensus on the disambiguation is reached, but it is unnecessary to protect the whole article. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
My preference would be for move protection over full protection, but we've already seen that my judgment isn't great in this case. It looked to me as if we had reached consensus, but I should have waited for CloudKade to chip in.
As for the facts of the matter, this program is made by a Canadian company, in Canada. The funding comes from the US and Canada. It's aired simultaneously by US and Canadian broadcasters. Later tonight or tomorrow, I'll see if I can find some sources referring to it as "North American" — I think I saw some while I was getting sources for the adaptation section. If we can find reliable sources, I think that should close the matter. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
To start with, here's an article from CTV, which refers to the show as "the Canadian remake of 'Being Human'...". I'm sure there are also plenty of reliable sources which refer to the series as "American" or "US"... which is the point. Reliable sources give contradictory information on how to describe the series, but they all call it either Canadian, US or "American" (which usually means US). All of those are North American, which is why the discussion — which CloudKade declined to participate in — decided that "North American" was an acceptable compromise. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:32, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and as I said in the earlier discussion on the MoS page: "The credits of the Canadian/North American/2011 version include "U.S. casting by Deedee Bradley" and "Developed for North American television by Jeremy Carver & Anna Fricke". This shows that a) although it's made in Canada by a Canadian company, the casting at least had US production involvement, and b) the phrase "North American TV" is supported by the production itself. Since the year is ambiguous and "North American TV series" is both unambiguous and supported by the source, I say we should go with that." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of full disclosure, CTV is owned by CTVglobemedia and CTVglobemedia also owns SPACE so yeah, if the news division of the whole called their own show 'the American remake made in Montreal' i would be wondering about that. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
just a suggestion what about calling the article Being human (Syfy tv series) take out the whole american/canadian argument 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
(←) Because the show is not Syfy's, they don't make it, they don't own the rights, they just license them like any other network that airs/will air the show. Calling it "(Syfy TV series)" is as wrong as calling it (U.S. TV series), it also airs on Space, so you could also call it "(Space TV series)", but that would be just as wrong. Also, we don't name articles by the network they air on, because it has little to no meaning, shows air on many networks, for some premium cable shows I could see that logic, as many of those actually produce there own shows, and own the rights to it. Which is not the case here. This is not a "Syfy"-show, they just pay for the right to broadcast it in the U.S. Xeworlebi(talk) 13:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Being Human (Space TV series) or Being Human (Muse TV series). It really is the same problem as picking a country or a year. With two countries which channel do you pick? There is no Syfy in Canada because there already was SPACE. If you wanted to go that route then using Muse as the disambiguation is the only one where there is no conflict because they alone actually make this show in association with (aka with license from) Zodiak but that is another matter likely to confuse more than clarify. That being said i don't think there is much acceptance for disambiguating a show based on the company that makes it. While ABC Studios made Kevin Hill it was Paramount as the primary broadcaster and so it would be odd to disambiguate it as Kevin Hill (ABC TV series) because most people would say it was broadcast on UPN not made by ABC. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Refer to it as the sources do, and leave it at that.~ZytheTalk to me! 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Zythe, the problem is that different reliable sources call it "American"/"US" or "Canadian". Fortunately, the on-screen credits in the primary source (which can be considered in article naming) says that it was "developed for North American television". So that's the most reasonable solution. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Why not drop "North" and use "American" to refer to the US and Canada? Or why was "2011" not useful as a disambiguation?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Using "American" is far too much a synonym for "U.S." and can actually be offensive to Canadians to refer to them as American because common association is to United States of America rather than to North America. My first choice was "2011" but as was pointed out by some elsewhere the third series of the original show is also in 2011 (the second episode of the most recent series of the UK version was transmitted this past Sunday) and is sometimes referred to as the "2011 series" which means it is an ineffective disambiguation for here. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The other piece of that problem is the fact that "series" in British English is equivalent to "season" in American English. So a speaker of British English could easily refer to the current run of episodes of the UK original as "the 2011 series of Being Human." —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
More or less, but without the "season/series" equivalence it might not have been completely clear. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
So why not use a dab template and say "For the series of the British version that aired in 2011, see Being Human (series 3)"?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, because a) neither program (programme) has articles for individual seasons/series at this point, and b) even if it did, that still wouldn't justify using a disambiguating term that doesn't actually disambiguate. "North American TV series" is unambiguous; "2011 TV series" is ambiguous. In general, I think that any disambiguating term that requires a hatnote isn't doing its job. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)