Talk:His Dark Materials (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

WP:BOLD edit: Lin-Manuel Miranda in main cast

Regarding this WP:BOLD edit, reverted by Alex 21. I suggest the source provided is good enough to assert Miranda as a main cast member prior to his appearance, as it is a source from the BBC itself that clearly presents him as one of the series' primary stars. Considering the unlikelihood of any source explicitly stating "Lin-Manuel Miranda is in the main cast", I'd rather deploy WP:COMMONSENSE to use this slightly imperfect reference to source something that is all but definite, due to the culmination of material that aren't appropriate independent references (all of Miranda's promotion for the series, this poster, etc.) than assert something that is highly unlikely to be the case (that Miranda's a recurring cast member, as the article currently reads). U-Mos (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Where does it present him as a main cast member? I'm seeing no terminology that states that he is main cast, principal cast, part of an ensemble cast, etc. If it doesn't say it, we can't state that it does, as that is WP:SYNTH, so yes, it need to explicitly state that Miranda is main cast (or any identical statement with related terminology).

As per MOS:TVCAST, [t]he cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list, and "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits. The current list is ordered as per the order of credits in the premiere episode. Additions cannot be made to it unless the order of credits in future episodes changes, after which newly credited cast will be added to the list. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The issue is it's also WP:SYNTH to state he's recurring cast, so I think we should go with the best fit. Perhaps an alternative is to not list anybody who hasn't yet appeared, or change the heading from 'Recurring' somehow? The proposed change doesn't disrupt MOS:TVCAST at all, as it placed Miranda at the bottom of the main cast list. U-Mos (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Recurring and guest" is a common header that fits everyone that is not credited (or at least, not yet) as main cast. The proposed change did indeed disrupt TVCAST, as he is only added to the end of the list once he is credited, not before; besides, adding him now does not take into account anyone else that may be credited before him in the future. That's why we wait. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree, as the current structure forces everyone to be listed as either main or recurring, and we don't have an explicit source for either (same is true for Ruta Gedmintas and others). So I believe we should follow the indication of the best source/s we have available. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts. U-Mos (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want to remove Miranda from the cast list until it's clearer, then go ahead. Sources are always the best way to go, but they always need to explicitly state what we say they're stating. I'm happy to wait for other opinions. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Georgina Campbell's character

I've noticed that Georgina Campbell keeps getting listed under the "Main" cast list. She appears in just one episode, which in my mind means she belongs in "Guest." SpiritedMichelle (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Was she credited alongside the main cast in the opening credits at any point throughout the series? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. SpiritedMichelle (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

correction regarding NZ distribution?

under "Release" it says NZ distribution is exclusively through Neon, which is owned by Sky - but this seems incorrect. i believe it's Sky itself with distribution rights, as i've just finished watching the first season on Soho 2, a Sky channel available via HD broadcast (like cable or satellite tv but over-the-air), and i do not subscribe to Neon. it also makes more sense for the parent company to have the rights and grant them to the subsidiary, rather than the other way around. without actually opening the two sources cited, both seem like improper references for the claim of Neon's exclusive distribution rights...one appears to be a list of titles available on the service, and the other appears to be Neon's page for the show, just as Netflix or Hulu would have for any titles on their platforms. if it IS actually Neon with rights that were then granted "upwards" to its parent company, could someone perhaps find a better source for that information and cite it? thx 2407:7000:8480:4400:CB8:8DDE:A0C4:9414 (talk) 08:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

i went back and looked at Neon's page (the second source cited for NZ distribution), and i was correct: it's just an info page for the show; it does make mention of exclusivity but only with regards to streaming. Sky also has a page for the show, including air dates/times starting Nov 5th and channels, found here...apologies for formatting here, i can't find how to make an indent 2407:7000:8480:4400:6581:1BAD:CA71:91DE (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Cast section is extremely bloated

See something like Game of Thrones#Cast and characters for comparison. The section should be written in paragraphs, and there are any bulleted sections, it should, at most, be for the core cast. Any further detail should be spun off to a new article once the list of prominent characters has grown substantially large, but that is probably not yet warranted. Until it is, a single line on the character entries for the book character list article is probably sufficient i.e. "In the television adaptation, ______ is played by _______." Wikipedia Cast sections are not for duplicating the full credits of a film or TV series. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Game of Thrones is the outlier here; lists are standard practice across thousands of television articles, per MOS:TVCAST. How the list is presented here is perfectly acceptable standard practice, including the main, recurring and guest cast in separate lists; if you wish to change that, then this is not the place for such a discussion. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You present MOS:TVCAST as disagreeing with me much more than it actually does, although I probably could've been more clear about what I meant. The very examples it itself gives (Fringe (TV series)#Cast and characters and Mutant X (TV series)#Characters) are written with each character getting multiple sentences worth of content and is presented in a single-column format. Even beyond that, directly on the MOS:TVCAST page itself, it says very plainly:

Remember to follow the notability guidelines when creating a cast list: not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and even fewer will deserve an individual article. It may be appropriate to split the cast listing by "Main" and "Recurring" cast or characters. If the series is long-running, and has a large number of recurring guest stars, it may be better to create a separate list of characters articles (see below for style guidelines on "List of ..." pages).

I was incorrect about the standard being prose (although it also acknowledges that it may be more appropriate sometimes), but the standard is certainly not littering the page with dozens of half-sentence descriptions of minor characters, spread across three columns, and yes, this is exactly the place to discuss that. The threshold for inclusion of characters and cast is way too low. Fringe, one of the examples they used, ran for 5 seasons (100 episodes) and has a total of 24 characters deemed worthy of mention in its article, spread across "Main" and "Recurring" cast sections. This article has 18 "Main" characters (most of whom are minor characters, at best), 10 "Recurring", 24 "Guest", and 8 "Voice cast", a distinction probably worthy of its own discussion given it isn't even acting on the same axis as the other three subsections. That's after 1 season (8 episodes). The difference here is not just a matter of characters given a non-zero amount of screen-time. The section is both tremendously bloated in the amount of cast listed and extremely barren in actual content for the cast that merit inclusion.

If you want a really direct comparison, Watchmen (TV series) just finished airing at 9 episodes, so even with its still new, rough "Cast and characters" section, it's notably slimmer at 13 "Main", 8 "Recurring", and 15 "Guest starring", despite not featuring notably fewer characters with speaking roles. The section needs substantial trimming. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Then remove the columns. Is that the only issue? You say that it needs "substantial trimming", but then give examples with "multiple sentences worth of content"? Do you want it trimmed or expanded? You really do need to detail yourself better.

Or is the issue that there's a Guest section, as TVCAST lists "Main" and "Recurring" cast or characters? Fringe only has minimal cast listed because List of Fringe characters exists. Mutants, I refer back to my first sentence of this paragraph. Is it just the Guest that are the issue?

As for this: This article has 18 "Main" characters (most of whom are minor characters, at best) - very clearly irrelevant. If 18 characters are credited as main characters in the episodes themselves, then we must list all 18 characters; TVCAST is very clear about this: The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series [...] Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits. We don't determine who's main or not, as that then becomes a very clear violation of original resaerch. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Then remove the columns. Is that the only issue? You say that it needs "substantial trimming", but then give examples with "multiple sentences worth of content"? Do you want it trimmed or expanded? You really do need to detail yourself better.

I detailed myself very explicitly:

The section is both tremendously bloated in the amount of cast listed and extremely barren in actual content for the cast that merit inclusion.

Please act in good faith.

very clearly irrelevant. If 18 characters are credited as main characters in the episodes themselves, then we must list all 18 characters; TVCAST is very clear about this: [...] We don't determine who's main or not, as that then becomes a very clear violation of original resaerch.

This would be all well-and-good if the show made any such distinctions. I just checked the end credits of multiple episodes, and they make no such distinction. The cast are consistently listed across 2 cuts, both unlabeled, with a 3rd cut for voice work. If you want to make the assumption (because of industry standards) that these first two cuts represent "major" and "minor" characters, within a given episode, I could get on board with that, but these lists are not consistent in their division across episodes, and the article is a list for the entire series, not individual episodes. As for how the cast list is officially presented for the series as a whole, outside of the individual episode credits, the official website from HBO only provides this, or the BBC one provides this for the overall show and this (scroll down) for individual episodes, which again, do not make the distinctions that the article makes and are certainly not as exhaustive. The only other source I see cited in the cast listings with relevance to the larger cast instead of individual character details is this article, which also only makes the distinction between a generic "Cast list" and "Daemon voices".

You're quoting to me how these distinctions are determined by the producers while slinging WP:OR at me, but the current distinctions made in the article are, as far as I can tell, not sourced from the producers at all. What source(s) are being used for the distinctions the article makes? To me, it seems like none. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding on because I forgot to address it: The following portion you (partially) quoted from TVCAST is especially irrelevant here:

Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, recurring and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order in each episode in which they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear.

His Dark Materials has no such consist ordering of cast members in the end credits. What most would probably think of as main characters tend to appear closer to the top, but their order in relation to each other is not consistent, and if I had to guess, I'd wager that they're simply listing all of the cast by screen time for the episode (just by spot-checking a few episodes). Regardless, what is clear that even making assumptions about the intention of unlabeled cuts, the divisions present in the article are not producer-designated, at the very least. At least not that I can tell from looking at sources provided in the article, readily available official cast listings from the two distributors, or from the in-show credits. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the end credits of multiple episodes That's nice, but primary cast are the ones credited in the opening credits of the series. Cast listed in the opening credits of the first episode are listed first, then any cast member added to the intro credits cast list are added to the end of the list here. Thus, throughout the eight episodes, 18 members have been listed in this manner, and thus we list all 18 main cast members. This is WP:TV and MOS:TV standard practice across thousands/tens-of-thousands of articles.

I think that answers your entire post. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

First, your snark is not unnoticed and also not appreciated. I am being civil with you; I'd ask that you do the same in return. Second, no, it does not at all answer the entirety of my most recent comment, let alone the ones prior, and I'm not going to bother to simply re-state what is already still there in front of you. Please participate in good faith or not at all. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I answered your concerns. Credits are not based on the end credits, they're based on the opening credits. If 18 characters are credited as main characters in the opening credifs of the episodes themselves, then we must list all 18 characters. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the last time I'm doing this.

• I answered your concerns.

This is false.

• Credits are not based on the end credits, they're based on the opening credits. If 18 characters are credited as main characters in the opening credifs of the episodes themselves, then we must list all 18 characters.

No one is credited as "main characters" in any credits, beginning or end. This distinction exists, apparently, solely in your mind alone. There is a list of credits, completely unlabeled in any way, during the opening credits. There is a longer, also completely unlabeled, list in the ending credits, which itself is a superset of the list from the beginning credits. In my repeated comments being 'very explicit, you have continued to ignore the details of my complaints and waste my time repeating myself, over and over. You have completely failed to address what supposed policy or guidelines are leading to this division into 3 (or 4, counting the voice-only roles) credits list with only, at most, 2 (or 3, counting voice-only) credit lists provided by the producers.

It seems very clear to me at this point that you are not acting in good faith, and I won't be engaging with you further. I am adding the notice back to the section, and if you have further concerns, register it with WP:DRN. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 02:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it is not my "mind alone", it is the very clear consensus of WP:TV. Opening credits cast are main cast. Disagree? Then you need to take it to WP:TV; clearly you haven't edited many TV programs if you are unaware of this, so I suggest you brush up. Or ask questions; there's nothing wrong with that. If you have no further plans to engage, then you deem this discussion closed. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Series 2 dates

Just a thought that poppde up, the Series 2 dates might need updating later, because a UK airdate has actually yet to be announced, we only know the HBO airdate. If it's anything like Series 1, the dates might need updating to a day earlier, because as DigitalSpy notes, episodes premiered first on BBC then the next day on HBO. Just something to keep an eye out on. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Would the airdates be better of listed as they are now, or like List of Sherlock episodes and List of Humans episodes? While the latter's rows are wider, the columns are less cramped together. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Cast table

@Noip303: MOS:TVCAST specifically says that cast tables "should not be used for programs with fewer than three seasons". If you disagree, you NEED to discuss it on the talk page, else face a report and be blocked for edit-warring. You can discuss the issue here and gain a consensus for it before reimplementing the table. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Alex 21: it also says main character listings are "determined by the series producers...not by EPISODE COUNT", therefore you shouldn't be sticking to the "oh if they're in more than 3 episodes they're main", because that's not how it works. You can't pull reasoning out of the Wikipedia Bible if you're not going to stick to all of the rules. Very clearly from this talk page other people have issues with how the cast page is presented and you're acting like the great big King of the Dark Materials Cast List.

That's for main cast. Featuring is listed as main cast, it's a subsection, we're not putting them in a Recurring or Guest role, or separate section. You seem to be mistaken. Do you have a reason for going against MOS:TVCAST or not? Edit-warring solves nothing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit notice request

Please create an edit notice for the article, placing in it the template {{British English|form=editnotice}} Thank you--Bazza (talk) 10:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Season 2 internationally

Just making a note of this here for now, as it would require info from other countries to be mentioned usefully in the article: very unusually, HBO have allowed distribution of season 2 episodes prior to their US broadcast; in New Zealand, episodes 1 and 2 aired on 17 November, with each subsequent episode therefore due to be shown a week ahead of the US. Are any other countries on a similar pre-US schedule? (Doesn't fill one with hope that HBO are about to greenlight season 3, does it...) U-Mos (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't know much regarding release ahead of US premiere, but the series has been renewed for a third and final season: https://deadline.com/2020/12/his-dark-materials-hbo-bbc-season-3-1234660428/ --SpiritedMichelle (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Lyra's parentage

I removed two references to Lyra's parents in the cast list, which revealed who Lyra's mother and father are. Do we really want readers to find out major plotlines just form reading the list of cast without any prior warning?

Readers would only need to look at the book/characters list articles to find this out, but in general terms anyway, we don't avoid 'spoilers'. I never read plot summaries to the end for films I haven't seen! Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Premise

The premise section says "In her search for a missing friend, Lyra also uncovers a series of kidnappings and a link to a mysterious substance called Dust," so how can you say "There is no "kidnapping plot by powerful leaders to use a substance called Dust"? Rotten Tomatoes summarizes the show as "During her search for a kidnapped friend, a seemingly ordinary but brave young woman from another world uncovers a sinister plot involving stolen children and a mysterious phenomenon called Dust." If you don't think my brief premise summary is worded well or the most accurate, even though it is similar to RT's, please do rewrite it. However, the WP:LEAD/MOS:TVLEAD should summarize the whole article, which includes the premise section or episode summaries. The current lead doesn't "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" without mention of what the show's actually about! Reywas92^Talk 17:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Crystal ball for release dates

Kala7992 has been overly bold and added specific release dates for the third series to the lead. I content that this is not only not an appropriate place for the information, but its inclusion contravenes WP:CRYSTALBALL, in particular Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. This very new user has repeatedly restored their edit (including non-adherance to MOS:REFPUNCT). Bazza (talk) 16:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I have undone all my changes, I do not wish to continue this fight anymore, its not worthwhile for my time Kala7992 (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

If the content is sourced, then it is acceptable in the lead. Per WP:CRYSTAL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I was summoned from WT:TV. If its sourced it can exist anywhere (lead, episode table, series overview, release section, etc.) within the article. Just make sure to word it in future tense "The series is set to premiere on X_Month X_Day, X_Year." It wouldn't be CRYSTAL because the article isn't be saying that it will definitely 100% premiere on that day, just that it is scheduled to, as stated in the reliable source. It could still be updated down the road if necessary. This is the standard on all television articles, season articles, and episode lists that I've contributed to. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed – you can't say "will premiere" on such and such a date, you can only say "is scheduled to premiere" or "is announced to premiere" or some such. There have been multiple examples of shows that have not actually premiered on their originally scheduled premiere date (for various reasons), some of which were even cancelled before ever airing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bazza 7 I just recalled the above discussion, having forgotten that you were the original poster, and you're trying to continue these edits over a month later. There is a clear agreeance that listing these dates does not violate CRYSTAL, as they are reliably sourced. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21 I'm not aware that the lead has changed since the conversation on 9–10 October above. It still, correctly, states "The eight-episode third and final series is expected to premiere first on HBO Max on 5 December 2022, and on 18 December 2022 in the United Kingdom."

My recent reversions were to the detailed series 3 information which explicitly gave definite airing dates in the future, rather than "intended" or "scheduled" dates, which I read from @IJBall and @TheDoctorWho's comments should be the format used. Specifically I replaced the "first aired" and "last aired" dates for Series 3 with "not yet broadcast". You reverted that change (and made another unsummarised change at the same time), despite the consensus above. I reverted and summarised that edit, and did the same for @Antoines1293's insertion of a whole table of as-yet-unbroadcast "original air dates". I'm not certain what it is you're accusing me of other than upholding the consensus agreed in October that future dates should be clearly marked as "scheduled".

As an aside, I can't understand the desire to jump the gun by stating as history things which are yet to occur: Wikipedia is neither a WP:TVGUIDE nor a competition to be first to provide inaccurate information. Bazza (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is all standard WikiProject Television practice (indeed, with this edit, you actually violated MOS:TVOVERVIEW). The consensus above relates to the prose. The addition of airdates to the hidden series overview and episode tables do not violate CRYSTAL, as they are reliably sourced. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that; zero information here is inaccurate. As stated, nothing here is new; you'll find this sort of information added and protrayed on every television series article you can find; I challenge you to find such an example and/or a consensus otherwise. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21

• I don't understand what "zero information is inaccurate" means.
• I re-hid the exposed hidden tables because they were >80% "TBA". It's reassuring to see that you are of the same mind.

We will have to disagree with whether it's correct to mark future events as having already happened. I still maintain not, but, in the absence of any others' opinions, will avoid making edits with are solely to correct that misrepresentation. Bazza (talk) 09:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is marking them has "having already happened".

The 80% is irrelevant; a table and/or row are added once, as per WikiProject Television standard practice, at least two pieces of information are available, whether that's credits/airdate, title/credits, title/airdate, etc. They were hidden as this was not the case; they have since been displayed as it is now the case for the first two episodes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@Alex 21 I thought I'd drawn a line under my opinions and made clear I accept yours are different, but you seem to still want to challenge.

• Grammatical tense marks things as having happened, as in "Originally aired", "First aired", "Last aired", etc.
• They were hidden: they were not: all rows were visible, with most cells containing "TBA". I have twice pointed out that Antoines1293 revealed the entire table in this edit, and I subsequently re-hid it.

Bazza (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Not challenging anything, we can agree to disagree, but there is still no indication of these dates being marked as having already happened. Tens of thousands of television articles using these television-related templates, and suddenly "Originally aired" is only now a problem? What we can agree to disagree on is your lack of knowledge of WikiPriject Television practices, despite my attempts to educate you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates

Why are we formatting the U.S release dates in the British format? That makes no sense. 162.221.11.34 (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Because MOS:DATEUNIFY says we should. Bazza (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The Break summary

For The Break, it speaks of Cardinal Sturrock. Didn't Sturrock die in Season 2? Is that supposed to say MacPhail (who became Cardinal after Sturrock's death)? Or did Sturrock get resurrected or have his death retconned? I haven't seen it (nor can I until its DVD release) so I don't know. 2604:3D09:6F7B:E640:8C77:DBBF:3B0B:8D0 (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You're right; this is MacPhail. Changed the synopsis accordingly. U-Mos (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Series 3 airdates

How do we want to list the UK airdates for Series 3? The entire season will be released on 18 December on iPlayer, and then continue to air weekly on BBC One (presumably through to 5 February). Do we list the iPlayer or BBC One dates?

Also worth noting is that the series has always aired in the UK first, but this will be the first series where it airs in the US first (at least for the first two episodes, before the iPlayer release). -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:52, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

List the iPlayer dates (once they have happened): the concept of "broadcasting" ("airing"?) is fuzzy, but as iPlayer users are required to have a television licence to view the series I think the dates shown should be those of the programmes' first releases for public viewing, regardless of mode. Bazza (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I have asked WikiProject Television, and the agreement is that the broadcast dates should be displayed, and the iPlayer date should be noted through other means. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This still seems to be an issue. I would have thought that air date means broadcast date, not iPlayer release date. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 10:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That is correct. A hatnote has already been placed in the header of the table, detailing the iPlayer release date, but given that we also include aired viewer ratings, these ratings need to coincide with the date they were aired; i.e. on BBC. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Summary for Series 3 final episode

An edit by @U-Mos on December 22 adds a synopsis for the episode finale. I'm curious how that is possible, since it doesn't air until December 26. Jefft0 (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

In the UK, all episodes have been available to stream since 18 December. Bazza (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)