Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)

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:

• The Haunting of Hill House.png

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

• added 10 November
• edit reverted on 11 November
• restored 6 days later on 17 November
• reverted to non-copyvio status again on 18 November
• restored for 2nd time on 18 November
• reverted to non-copyvio status for 3rd time on 18 November
• "re-imagining of" text is reinstated on 18 November

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)

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)

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)

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)