Talk:Skins (American TV series)

Request to change "General Motors" from list of brands who chose to remove ads

GM has released a statement saying their advertisements were played in error, and did never intended to be aired during that show's airtime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.11.112.251 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Request re-move to Skins (North American TV series)

Made in Canada by Canadian and British production companies (E1 and Company Pictures)[1], starring mostly Canadians, this is a Canadian-British show that is merely set in the US. The last show that had this kind of configuration was Queer as Folk (North American TV series). Toronto can stand in for Pittsburgh or Baltimore but that doesn't change the fact British and Canadian companies are making the show in Canada for a bi-national market. I moved it yesterday from Skins (U.S. TV series) to Skins (North American TV series) and someone took great exception to de-Americanising of the show. Yes, i do not dispute that pretty much everything calls it Skins US. It is short, easy to type, needs little explanation to the convey the minimalistic detail needed to draw in an audience. All of that doesn't mean that it is accurate, just common use. And inaccurate common use is what a redirect is for. Despite being made in Toronto by Temple Street Productions with money from Showtime there exists Queer as Folk (US TV series) as a redirect but there is no Queer as Folk (Canadian TV series). By great coïncidence i happen to have the Ontario Media Development Corporation "OMDC MEDIA LIST – August 13, 2010 Productions currently shooting in Ontario." thanks to needing it for another show. Sadly there are no direct links on their website to the archives of the fortnightly updated listings. So here anyway is my copy. On the bottom of page 2 you will find Skins with the Canadian production company, the production office address telephone and fax info, and the shoot time period. Surely there is proof enough that it is made in Canada by a Canadian company and ought to exist here as a North American series due to it's bi-national nature. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It does not matter that the cast, crew and setting are all mostly Canadian. It's network, the one that greenlit and bought the series in the first place, is MTV which is an US network. It was not intended for airing on MTV in Canada, but instead on MTV Canada. That is a totally different network, and should not be considered in the titling of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

MTV Canada has not a damn thing to do with this show. Somehow you seem to think that i am saying that it does. I don't know where you are getting that from.
It does matter that the cast, crew, location (not setting), and production companies are mostly Canadian. That is kind of the point. Who is making and who owns the show? E1 & Company Pictures - a Canadian company and a British company. Who is broadcasting it? MTV and The Movie Network & Movie Central. Are they shown simultaneously? Sort of; the Canadian showing has no commercials and so it may start at 10pm et but the Canadian version concludes first. Who gets the censored version? MTV Who gets the un-censored version? The Movie Network & Movie Central. For the general lack of press about tv in Canada relative to that coming from the US it has proven difficult to track down just when Corus and Astral got involved with Skins. E1 might have sold it to Corus before MTV signed on.
Furthermore, please do not remove comments from talk pages. If you made the comment about Baltimore being removed from the article for lack of any specificity in the show proper or the references then you could remove it but that would be associating your IP address to your account and you probably don't want to do that. And if the comment is not from you then even more so please do not remove the comments of others if they are not vandalism. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that it's not called Skins: Canada or Skins: North America, and whenever talking about the Skins remake, it's always known as the US version due to the producers claiming it was a US show from the beginning! Many US television shows are filmed in Canada as well as films, and are known as US films and television shows. I honestly think this entire argument is completely pointless to be honest. CloudKade11 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The point here is proper disambiguation of the article. No show is called Being North American Human or Queer As North American Folk. They are called Being Human and Queer As Folk. If the show were formally called Skins US then the title would self-contain disambiguation. But it is called Skins. And it is not an American show; It is a North American show. If this is completely pointless then you won't mind me moving it back to Skins (North American TV series). delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Not an American show? You really need to do your research because there is no such thing as a show going by "North American". Such a title doesn't exist and never will. And if you change it back you'll be reported quicker than a heartbeat. CloudKade11 (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching this whole argument since the first idiot started it. I can easily tell this is unbelievably clearly simply a control issue. He wants to have the title changed his way, and won't settle for anything else. I will fully support reporting him if he needs to be reported in the end. This page better NEVER be moved to Skins (North American TV series), because like the third commenter here made it so clear, that would be the stupidest, most pathetic thing to happen to this page and would make not the least bit of sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You lost all credibility once you called an editor an idiot and I stopped reading after that point. Whatever high intelligence you may believe you might have descended from is moot once you descended to schoolyard name calling. If you fail to apologize and square it up, you should be monitored instead. WP:AGF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veriss1 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would this be a control issue? No editor can gain or lose by moving a page. Delirious is just trying to make the page follow the rules on disambiguation. Calling her an idiot will not further your cause. And no, this argument is not pathetic. Our goal on Wikipedia is to make every article perfect. For that, we must first define "perfect", with many rules. Delirious is just trying to make this page follow the rules. Anyways, if the show is both Canadian and American (in equal measure), it would be biased to just name it as a "US TV show". Put yourself in a Canadian's shoes. You might just feel the opposite. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 05:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I am not the only one who thinks so. I am in Calgary. Someone from Ajax, Ontario added the WikiProject Canada tag to this here talk page.[2] Further, i am not a "he". Proper disambiguation of a multinational show - it happens all the time. If one show has already ended then often it is simply the start year that is used as in "(2011 TV series)" but the British skins (TV series) is still ongoing. Broadcast in USA does not equal American-made. Calling me an idiot is most inappropriate.[3] Made in/by Canada + set in USA + primary broadcasters are in both countries at time of making of a show = bi-national show. Hence disambiguation of "North American TV series" instead of "U.S. TV series". Just like Queer as Folk (North American TV series) which i shall again link here for those reading this. But if you had read my other comment [4] where i say i will gladly drop my request for bi-national recognition in light of the child porn claims in the US you would see how odd it is to have later called me an idiot and threatened to report me for discussing something. I haven't watched the show and have no interest in it. I simply found it has significant ties to Canada as well as the USA and wished to have that reflected in the disambiguation of the article title. I guess that makes me a Canadian Idiot. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make you a Canadian Idiot, and don't try to use a link to a song to make it all like cleaver, when all your doing is TRYING to bypass how you mislabeled the countries. Anyway, now that the you decided not to re-move the page, I guess this is settled. I apologize for maybe overreacting with the report threat, but the other person made the same threat. Beside, I never threatened to ACTUALLY REPORT you, but instead to simply support the person who made that threat if they did ultimately report you, so don't you EVER try to twist my words. Then Again, try watching part of an episode, and you'll realize how clearly (based on acting, writing, subject matter, and overall content) they specifically (and only) intended for it to be seen be US MTV viewers, not anyone in Canada. They would have used more Canadian-inspired content if they intended for any MTV Canada airings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I complete agree with Core2012. Nothing is being noted out there that this show is even remotely part-Canadian. I really don't understand all the fuss here. I'm sorry Canada didn't make their own version of Skins, but just because Skins has their own version and Canada does not, it doesn't give you the right to make up a story that the US and Canada are in North America, thus having to name the show "North American". Sorry, but I won't let this article change into something it's not. I also checked out the Queer as Folk article, and let me tell you that someone really needs to get some work on it ASAP. It's horrid. And I'm not even going to bother arguing with the whole "Canadian/North American/US" thing there. I might in the near future, but not now. That article really needs to be fixed up.CloudKade11 (talk) 07:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The show currently IS mislabelled. Queer As Folk was mislabelled on Wikipedia for something like 3 or 4 years as an American show, just because it was shown on Showtime. Theses shows are set in US cities so that they can be shown on US tv without people objecting to their being made in Canada. There are many, many, such shows. Most of them do not require disambiguation in the title of their articles on Wikipedia so this never comes up as an issue about those articles. Being a remake that uses exactly the same title as the original results in disambiguation being required. If skins were made by an American company then the "U.S. TV series" disambiguation would be appropriate. Smallville is made in Canada by an American company but requires no disambiguation as it is by far the most well known subject of that name. Nikita (TV series) is also made in Canada but by an American company though it doesn't share the exact name of the show and movie it is a remake of so this issue is not also found there; it is simply disambiguated as a "TV series" from people of that name. Being Human has this issue. Being Human's remake is made in Montreal by a Montreal production company for SPACE and Syfy. It has bounced around Being Human (U.S. TV series), Being Human (Canadian TV series), and Being Human (2011 TV series) mostly because of my pointing out that while set in Boston and staring a couple of Americans in principal roles it is made in Montreal and its primary broadcast channel is a Canadian sci-fi cable channel. There is a discussion on the proper disambiguation of 2011 or North American but so far all parties agree that due to it's bi-national status having either country in the disambiguation is inappropriate. I happen to edit Canadian-made tv shows. So you might find me often in related discussions. It is one of my niches. It is why you find me here. Again, MTV Canada has not a thing to do with this show. If the show has not a thing to do with Canada then why is is being made by E1 (a Canadian company) and made in Toronto and shown on Corus and Astral Media channels? They, not MTV Canada, are the intended Canadian channels. If skins was not meant to be seen in Canada then it would be made in the US or at least made by a US company and would not have simultaneously premiered in Canada as typically only broadcast networks (not cable channels) have any benefit to simultaneous transmission of programming. With all of the allegations of the showing being child porn i think i will pass on watching it. The furthest my tastes go in this is the show skin (TV series) which was on FOX and CH 7 years ago and which was cancelled for being too graphic to attract an audience and it is far more tame than what i hear skins is. I know many Canadian shows that are made to be sold to American broadcasters so i don't need to watch this to know that it is possible to make a show in Canada that will be marketable in the US without alluding to its Canadian origins. The first season of Flashpoint (TV series) was made ambiguous enough to fool many American viewers of CBS into thinking it was made-in-the-USA. With subsequent seasons things such as street names and license plates on vehicles were no longer hidden and aerial shots of Toronto were frequently used to clarify that "any big city" to be Toronto. I hope you don't mind my passing on viewing this show. I never said the content of the article on Queer As Folk was top-notch just that its article title is correctly disambiguated. As to being sorry Canada didn't make their own version of Skins you appear to not understand that this is that version; it is shared between the two countries. As to your objecting to my "right to make up a story that the US and Canada are in North America" i just don't know what to say. I am not writing just to you Core2012 but to both/all of you now here and who may later read this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Just stumbled across this argument, but I have to say I agree with delirous. I disagree with herabout the significance of where it is filmed. That is of no importnace, but nor is the issue of where it is set. If a US TV show were set and filmed in say Palestine, it would not be a bi-national production, it would be US. However, the fact that it is produced to air in both the USA and Canada means that it is a North American production. I think people may be being a tad patriotic on both sides of this argument (as a Brit i can understand that), but delirious is right even though some of her reasoning is flawed. 95.146.248.44 (talk) 09:52, 22 January 2011(UTC)(retroactively signing this, not signed in at time, dn't know if that's allowed?) Humphrey appleby (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem here is that there is no such thing as a "North American TV series". Delirious just barely made up that title for all shows. CloudKade11 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Article title not Show title. A descriptive difference included in the article title that accurately conveys how one thing is not another thing that it shares a name with. That is what disambiguating articles is. It is not saying the show is called skins (North American TV series). If the show formally were titled skins us then that would self-contain the required disambiguation and the article title would be Skins US. The show is made in Canada but American companies make shows in Canada all of the time. Who owns the show? Not MTV but Company Pictures, a British company, and E1 Television, a Canadian company which just so happens to have operations in Los Angeles and London in addition to their head office in Toronto because they do make shows all over the place for various markets and are actually one of the main producers of content for multinational television markets (it is not an afterthought for them to sell a show to Germany or the UK or Malaysia or the US but rather that is part of their standard practice). If E1 makes a show in Canada that is set in Canada and is principally for a Canadian market then it is a Canadian show, even if NBC buys US broadcast rights. If E1 makes a show in the US that is set in the US and is principally for US broadcast then it is an American show. When E1 makes a show in Canada and shares production with another Canadian company and the principal broadcasters are a US cable channel and a Canadian cable channel owned by the company co-producing the show with E1 then it is a multinational production. For example, Haven (TV series) is made in Canada by E1 Television and Shaw Media for Syfy and Showcase (TV channel). As there are no other TV series by that name no regional or chronological disambiguation is needed. The prose of the article also does not label it as an American or a Canadian show but simply as "Haven is a supernatural drama television series...". If there were another show called Haven then adding in a regional disambiguation would be required. All of my mentioning of Queer As Folk is because it is the only other show in this circumstance that has been settled. This exact same issue of disambiguation exists on Being Human and remains unresolved though despite my earlier comments in that discussion i am now favouring use of North American TV series there because even the show's credits call it the North American version. All three have their origins in British tv. All three remakes are made in Canada by Canadian companies with some or no involvement from American production companies. All three shows' remakes are set in the US. All three remakes had both Canadian and American cable channels order the show to series and where applicable renew their orders for additional seasons. None of the shows were made exclusively for one channel and the other from the other country came along later. That is the epitome of a bi-national tv show. For such the disambiguation in the article title is regional rather than national to the exclusion of one nation in favour of the other nation. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 01:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, no show in the history of television goes by "North American" or anything similar to that. That's what you have to understand. It's easier to just leave it as U.S. Also, the QAF article needs to be fixed, so you can't really use that as evidence. One more thing, do you have any proof that Skins includes it "North American" in the credits? CloudKade11 (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a slight misunderstanding here. Like delirious said, Article title not Show title. It's irrelevant that no show has been called "North American", because We are not renaming the show. Ditto for the credits thing. This is just a disambiguation problem, which arises from the fact that Skins is also a UK TV show. To differentiate the two articles, we have to write Skins (North American TV series). We can't narrow it down to "US TV series", because it isn't just a US TV series. We are specifying it's location. If we are going to specify, we'd better specify correctly. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 07:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If skins is available on demand from Movie Central then i can fast forward through the show to the credits. It wasn't there a couple of days ago but it says it is/will be available. The tvrips you can download not so legally cut off the end credits of shows if they are from a US broadcast. I'll go look. I am guessing that there will be some nice "Canadian Casting", Ontario Film & Video Tax Credit, and Directors Guild Of Canada stuff in the credits. If you are in the US you could likely view a stream of the episode from mtv.com and see the same thing.
QAF article content is not that well written and referenced but that is of no consequence to the article title being correct.
I don't know how many more ways i can try to explain and give examples of Article title disambiguation. It is not what you seem to be thinking it is. ManishEarth gave an admirable attempt at explaining it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So, skins is still not available on demand from Movie Central. I picked up a VPN to watch the credits stream on mtv.com since they do geolocking of their streaming content and guess what - the credits are cut off from the stream. But out of desperation i thought to try The Movie Network's site. It is there. With end credits. And you can skip to the end and avoid the content of dubious nature. And there is not one bit of advertising the precedes the episode or interrupts it. The theme song is by 3d Friends. Skins is produced in association with The Movie Network and Movie Central and is produced by E1, Storm Dog, Company Pictures, and MTV Production Development. Here are 12 screencaps from the stream from The Movie Network. In there you will find CDC members did the casting, that it is protected by the copyright laws of Canada, the US, and other countries, that it is made by members of the Directors Guild of Canada and the Writers Guild Of Canada (but not the Writers Guild of America), and other things. I can't put up a link for you to download the stream as that would violate every copyright law applicable here and get me in trouble too. If you want to see for yourself then watch the stream from themovienetwork.ca. When the DVD comes out you will see it there but in the mean time there is not much else to offer you to show it is a multinational production and that it is indeed being produced by The Movie Network and Movie Central and not just shown on those channels. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Skins (North American TV series) is quite clearly the appropriate title for the article. As has been pointed out, some contributors here don't quite seem to understand what a disambiguator is for. It's merely to distinguish articles with the same title from each other. It's not to suggest that this is the actual titles of the series. But it does have to be accurate, and as it seems that this show can be given no particular nationality (filmed in Canada, set in the USA, owned by Canadian and British companies, shown in Canada and the USA) then "North American" is the best and most accurate compromise. It's true and it disambiguates this series from the British original. Job done! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

As you can now see from the current article title, I got my way as the title is still Skins (U.S. TV series), and won't change any time soon. I am not saying I was entirely right from the beginning, but I was at least partially. As far as disambiguation, whoever said some people here don't seem to understand it's meaning is/are completely wrong. I entirely understand that concept, and its use. Here are two options you could use instead if you want it changed so badly: 1)create a separate page for the Canadian version, unless it is too similar. 2)if it is too similar, mention in this article's intro that the show also airs in Canada, and any differences (like how it is uncensored and commercial-free there, as was stated by the guy who started this whole argument) can be included there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the concept of Wikipedia at all. Crowing that "I got my way as the title is still Skins (U.S. TV series), and won't change any time soon" is childish, irrelevant and inaccurate, as it can be changed at any time. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, not a vanity project in which you argue until you "get your way". I'm not going to move it yet, but if there is a consensus to move then I shall do so. From what I can see there are two people here who support your point of view (including yourself) and four who oppose it. This issue needs more discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Coming here from the MoS discussion on Being Human, I've got to agree with Delirious and Necrothesp. As the show is clearly made primarily by Canadians (but with US and UK participation), primarily for the US market (but with the Canadian market in mind as well), calling it either "U.S." or "Canadian" is taking a debatable stance. However, nobody can argue that it's not North American. And since the purpose of the disambiguation (that is, the bit in parentheses) is to distinguish articles which would otherwise share the same title, and to do so accurately and unambiguously, "North American TV series" is the best disambiguator, just as it is in the cases of Queer as Folk and Being Human. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you understand me at all Necrothesp. I am not TRYING to "get my way" with this. Beside, if you actually tried to move the article, I WILL move it back, and make a note as I suggested in my last comment, stating that the same show airs in Canada, but uncensored and commercial-free instead. Making such a note would be MUCH more appropriate for this particular situation than renaming the WHOLE article. "North American TV series" makes no sense anyway, as NOT A SINGLE OTHER SHOW that does/has air(ed) here in both countries has its article named "North American TV series". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

First thing, by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we don't care about precedents. Second thing, "I WILL move it back"? That's just an invitation to an editwar. Which can get you blocked. Third thing, you are missing the point again. We are not talking about the article content. "Making such a note" has no relation to the title. The page is an encyclopaedia article. Imagine (Please forgive my exaggerated analogy) looking up the article on "Bread" in Britannia and finding a nice article on "Cheese". Even worse, looking for the article on "Cheese", and not finding it because it's mislabeled as "Bread". That's whats happening here. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 06:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Core2012, four points:

1. This is not about whether the show airs in Canada, with or without commercials or censorship. It's the same program. The question of whether it's a "US" or "Canadian" series can mean a number of different things: a) who makes it? b) where is it made? c) who put up the money for it to be made? d) who is it primarily made for? These questions have different answers: a) Canadians, mostly; b) in Canada; c) US and Canadian TV channels and other production companies from both countries; and d) both countries, though since the US market is bigger it's a larger target. Depending on how you define "US TV series" or "Canadian TV series", it's possible to make reasonable arguments either way on this. Since we're not likely to come to a consensus on whether the show is "US" or "Canadian", why not say that it's North American, which encompasses both?
2. You seem to have missed the discussion about Queer as Folk (North American TV series) and Being Human (North American TV series), both of which are in the same situation, and both of which have now been settled with the "North American" disambiguator. Manishearth isn't completely correct when he says that we don't care about precedents: what would be more accurate would be to say that we care about precedents only if participating editors feel that the reasoning behind them works in the situation at hand. And in this case, I think that it does, and I think others do as well. Which leads me to the next point:
3. Wikipedia operates by consensus, not by who edited last. A formal move request has now been started; the article shouldn't be moved (by anyone) until that is finished. But when it is, you should respect the decision made by your fellow Wikipedians.
4. In future, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature button above the edit window ( or ). Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Core2012, if the article is moved after a consensus has been reached to do so and you move it back then it will be move protected and I will consider blocking you. Simple as. That will just be considered disruptive behaviour. Wikipedia operates by consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree slightly with Josiah Rowe (though not his conclusion) slightly. I would say that this is not a matter of being unable to agree on whether this is a US or a Canadian show and agreeing to North American as a compromise. I submit that it truly is a 'North American' show. As discussed above I think this correct disambiguation is derived from the following broad criteria: a) which nation financed it? b)which nation produced it? and c)which nation is it targetted at/produced for? The finer detail that should be considered as a part of this includes questions such as: i) where is it set ii)where is it filmed iii)where does it air iv)who (nation wise) is it marketed at v)who wrote it vi)who acted in it and so on.

The criterion carrying most of the weight of this is surely c) - which nation is it targetted at/produced for. In fact, i think I would go so far as to say c) alone has the weight to give a show binationality all by itself. EG, if all questions apart from a) answered france and a) answered Germany - it would be a French show as the question of who financed it does not carry enough weight alone to raise binationality but if all questions apart from c) answered France and c) answered Germany it would be binational.

In this case the issue is complicated, but the production itself is almost entirely Canadian (with some British influence (separate from the fact it's a copy of a UK show) in script and production decisions like casting). In terms of finance it is mostly a mixture of US and Canadian, although i believe there was some UK financing in the early speculative stages. Lastly, which nation is it targetted at? It is targetted at both Canadian and US audiences, but as US has a much larger potential audience this is where the focus is. However, the fact that the US version is censored and Canada will get the full version shows this is not entirely targetted at the US and then retargetted at Canada - if it were, the content which will be edited out of the US version wouldn't even be produced. Some attention was paid to international audiences and the decision was made early on that this would also air in Germany, but this has not noticably influenced production. Overall, I would say 80% targetted at US, 20% targetted at Canada, international is after-production targetting only.

Conclusion: The Candian dominance in production, US/Canadian/multinational financing and US/Candian targetting with focus on US audience shows this to be a binational show. The UK influence in production and finance is not significant enough to qualify this as a multinational show. Similarly, despite the fact it was decided early on that the show would air in Germany, the show has not been targetted at a German audience. Therefore, the binational disambiguation of 'North American' is correct for this article. Humphrey appleby (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Humphrey appleby, welcome to Wikipedia as a named user. It is nice to not be a number. While you make a very good point that is pretty much supporting my position i must disagree with your assessment. Most shows made in Canada, whether they ever successfully do or not, are made with the intent to market them to a US broadcast network or cable channel. It brings in more money if they can sell the show to the largest market in the English language and who doesn't want to increase revenue streams? By your weighing target market as the primary concern that would put almost every single Canadian tv show as being North American. That is taking it too far. It is a fairly general but not that inaccurate a statement to claim that most English language tv shows have at least one of either the United Kingdom or the United States as a desired or intended target market. Australia and Canada make many great programmes but have smaller populations. For that reason i would consider target market the least important factor if you are to consider them unevenly. Who makes/owns it & where is it made being of equal or greater concern. In your previous example of a show made & set in Palestine by a US company then it would be a US show. If that show were co-produced by a Palestinian company and also received local broadcast (as is likely to happen) then it would be a US-Palestinian show. I don't think Traffic Light (TV series) and In Treatment are made or set in Israel; they are considered American remakes of some fine Israeli television programmes. If you get into concerns about who individually stars in a show then many American shows would be partially Australian - Charmed, The Mentalist, Profiler, The Guardian, The Chicago Code - all for starring some of the hottest actors formerly in Australia or partially Canadian - 24, Veronica Mars, Just Shoot Me, Happy Endings, ALIAS, Terriers, How I Met Your Mother, LOST, and even The Mickey Mouse Club - for the actresses and actors of Canadian citisenship that star(red) in them. Citisenship of one actress, even if she plays the titular character is not in itself a deciding factor. The skins remake cast is presently predominantly Canadian. If it is anything like Degrassi then the cast will change as you can't be a teenager forever and that balance of citisenship could change (assuming the show makes it to multiple seasons). Who paid for the show is of such weight as to make a show German-French in your above example. If it is owned by the German company that also made it then it is not a French show even if the language of the show is French. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 02:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with you there (although I think we're now getting distracted away from the issue and towards pure hypotheticals). I think you misunderstand me when I say who is in it is a factor. I believe this to be a very minor part - so just having an Australian actor, or even an entire Australian cast would not make it an australian show. But if the cast were Australian, it were filmed and set in Australia, its writers were Australian, the production and edit crew were Australian, then this should carry some weight (not enough to make it binational, but enough when added to financing or targetting), even if the producing corporation were eg US.

I disagree with you that the questions of finance and production are more important than intended market (not applicable here as it is aimed at both US and Canadian markets). A significant number of shows which air in the US (and made to do so) are Canadian produced and financed (although later sold to US companies). I would call these binational. I would be much less likely to call something financed in Canada but produced by US and marketed at US binational - this is simply a case of international speculative investment. This happens in lots of industries and is not generally considered to qualify something as a binational project - unless the foreign country is paying for the project at the end (as happens in aid projects - but you are unlikely to see a foreign aid programme financing TV). Where the project is sold to the producing country by the financier, it is not binational. Incidentally, the strength of the Canadian film/TV industry would mean that if financing was as important as you submit, then virtually every US programme currently airing could be considered binational, even those not produced in Canada. Canada's TV industry finances a lot of shows in their initial stages, even those not aimed at the Canadian market. Once they get through the concept stages, they are then sold on to the US market. Humphrey appleby (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Broadcast rights being sold to ABC or NBC or The CW does not a bi-nationality make. If that were the case every hit show and most of the failures too that are found on US tv would be bi-national due to their being at some time broadcast in Canada on CTV, Global, CH, OMNI, Toronto 1, Citytv, E!, /A\, Showcase, SunTV, The New RO, OnTV, ASN, or SPACE. Unless you are saying the reciprocal of your position is not a valid. Many, many, many shows are made in Canada. Of those shows made in Canada that are seen on US broadcast or cable channels very, very, very few are made by Canadian companies. What you call bi-national i mostly call Canadian. What you call American i would likely call bi-national. What i call American you seem to oddly be calling Canadian. There are no shows financed by Canadian companies that are also not produced by those said Canadian companies that are financing the said shows. What you and most people fail to see or acknowledge is that these shows made in Canada are marketed in Canada to Canadians as domestic, original series on the channels they are shown on. Smallville is not a "SPACE Original Series" but Being Human is a "SPACE Original Series" and Haven is a "Showcase Original Series" while Covert Affairs is not. Smallville and Covert Affairs are both made in Canada but made by US companies for US distribution with Canadian companies buying Canadian rights to the shows. "Where the project is sold to the producing country by the financier, it is not binational." Shows themselves are rarely ever sold these days, and they are not sold to a country. Distribution rights to a show in a particular territory via a particular medium is what is sold. Syfy bought US broadcast rights to Haven while Shaw Media co-produced/financed the show and put it on Showcase with repeats to start on Global shortly. NBC bought US broadcast rights to Merlin and CTV the Canadian broadcast rights; when the show failed to deliver an acceptable audience on their broadcast networks both companies flipped the show to their respective sci-fi cable channels. Disney makes Desperate Housewives and broadcasts it on their network and they sold the Canadian broadcast rights to CTV. Merlin is not a British-American-Canadian show. Flashpoint, rookie blue, Call Me Fitz, and Durham County are all made in Canada by Canadian production companies. Call Me Fitz is set in Detroit whilst the other 3 are set in or near Toronto. CBS bought into Flashpoint and co-produces the show but with their selling their first-run rights to ION who knows what CBS will do long-term on the production side of the show. If selling the US rights is still profitable then CBS will probably stay on as a co-producer of Flashpoint. The other 3 have no US production companies involved in their making. ABC bought US broadcast rights to rookie blue. ION bought US broadcast rights to Durham County. It seems that US rights to Call Me Fitz are available for purchase.
If the above seems blah then let me say that i am just plain and simple outright confused by your statement "financed in Canada but produced by US". Shaw (co-)financed rookie blue, Lost Girl, and Haven and Shaw produced the shows. rookie blue is on Shaw's Global network, Lost Girl and Haven are on Shaw's Showcase cable channel. That two of those three have had their US broadcast rights purchased doesn't make them US shows in any way at all. But i think you are arguing that it most certainly does. Disney/ABC isn't producing rookie blue and NBC/Universal/Syfy/GE/Comcast is not producing Haven; both companies simply bought broadcast rights. Hence i am so confused by what i understand to be your position regarding Skins and every other show made in this hemisphere. Perhaps you could just email me because i have a feeling it might not be worth filling this talk page trying to comprehend each other's position. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Baltimore

I removed the part about the setting as Baltimore. No source, and not mentioned at all in the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.172.40 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Child porn

So the (US) morning shows are saying that people could be arrested for violating (US) child porn laws because of this show? And will such people be extradited from Canada? As the US has a habit of prosecuting minors in child porn (see sexting), I shouldn't wonder if the actors themselves would also be charged and wanted in the US. If this comes to pass... would the British version also be in the targets of prosecutors?

These concerns need to be added to the article. 64.229.103.105 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

They do, look at all the sources: http://www.google.com/search?q=most+dangerous+tv+show+for+chidlren&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GGLL_en 74.137.176.86 (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

If noöne else has i should be able to go through that in the next day or so. If all of those google results say what this section heading does then i shall gladly rescind my request that this be recognised as a bi-national show. Blame Canada because outside is America. I am guessing the headlines are crafted to sensationalise and ensure maximum exposure (how ironic) but if there is any truth to it then ... delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Re :: "... would the British version also be in the targets of prosecutors?", in the light of the pending investigations, and the clear instance of a Patriot Act violation, the answer must be "yes". 212.137.36.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: has been carried out Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Skins (U.S. TV series) → Skins (North American TV series) — See ongoing discussion at Talk:Skins_(U.S._TV_series)#Request re-move to Skins (North American TV series), but the gist is there is an original British show at Skins (TV series) and this new series is filmed in Canada [edit: comprised primarily by Canadians and originally intended for the Canadian market --Born2cycle (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)] but aired on a U.S. network so "North American TV series" is the suggested compromise disambiguator to "U.S. TV series" or "Canadian TV series". --Born2cycle (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support per discussion above, and per precedents at Being Human (North American TV series) and Queer as Folk (North American TV series), all of which, like this version of Skins, were made in Canada by Canadian production companies (or in co-production with US or UK companies), primarily for the US TV market. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per arguments made by delirious and me in above discussion. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support per my own can't shut up above, but must again contest Josiah's assertion they were made primarily for the US TV market. BH isn't and QAF wasn't either. Made to work in the US TV market, yes, but not necessarily made for that market. And ManishEarth if you wouldn't mind letting me save an edit once in a while ;) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The gist above in the proposal really is too simplified. If that were the substance of the reasoning then Smallville and Nikita and The L Word and so many other shows would be mislabelled. It is where they are made, who they are made by, and who they are made for. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 08:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that :P ... ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 08:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Not that i object to the move [5] but 2 days of formal voting seems a short time since those that oppose my motion are so equally adamant that it remain at "U.S. TV series". Should it go back pending more input from others or should i be happy and shut up? delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 11:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support per arguments in above discussion. Also, i'd second the criticism of 'the gist' above - if what is said here was true then the case for the North American disambiguation is much weaker and it would probably be US. Humphrey appleby (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Okay no

I'm undoing EVERYTHING on this article from "North American", because this article makes it seem like the show is Canadian. I mean the country of origin has Canada in it. RIDICULOUS. Right there is the last straw. I can't believe people are so immature to do such a thing. I have a feeling it was Dilarious. I will also be changing the Being Human US version. Labeling them Canadian was not what we talked about. So until everything is fixed, things will remain the same as before. CloudKade11 (talk) 07:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Please do not move pages or make drastic changes to an actively collaborated-upon article without prior discussion - it's not fair to your fellow editors. The section above this on the talk page is how a page move should be proposed and agreed; please take note.

The majority of contributors here have agreed that a Canadian production company filming in Canada with a primarily Canadian cast can be reasonably defined as a Canadian show. I noted in my edit summary that precedent has already been set for the Country of Origin for a television show to be based on the production companies (Template talk:Infobox television/Archive 9#Country_of_origin). The gist of it is that MTV distributing Skins in the US does not make it a US-produced show. MTV also distribute it in Germany. Does this make it a German show? In my personal view, even "North American" is a generous compromise.

Your suggestion that "until everything is fixed, things will remain the same as before" implies you feel you have ownership of this article - you don't, so cool it. It would be very much appreciated if you would both respect other editors' views, and watch your tone in future, as it does appear you are throwing a tantrum. — Pretzels ^Hii! 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is this also a Mexican show.. since Mexico is also part of North America? Shouldn't we go by what reliable sources call this show -- and that is a "US version" of the UK version. —Mike Allen 01:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

MikeAllen, wikipedia:reliable sources can be wrong. It isn't even explicitly made for the US. It is made in Canada by a Canadian and a British company staring mostly Canadians and is most popularly known as the US version even though the Canadian broadcasters are also involved in the production of the show. That is the reliable sources skewing the facts en mass because the sources are mostly US-based and look around at how well things go when you call a show that is on a US channel an import from Canada. It is not just complaints here. Many Americans are strongly opposed to importing shows from Canada. Calling rookie blue Canadian crap or blaming Canada for the child porn on MTV or saying that such shows steal the jobs of hard working american actresses and actors by taking time slots that could have gone to American-made shows. The hate is very pronounced where you do find it. To hide that a bit when a show is imported the channel that picks it up will flood the media with releases calling it a US show. The media buys into it like good little lemmings. From that you get the reliable sources which skew the truth to make it more acceptable to their American readers. Meanwhile the show has almost no media coverage in Canada because that is just how things get done here. Even some of the Canadian media have picked up the American-lemming reports.
There are a whole 3 shows that need Canada-US disambiguation in the article titles. It is not a wide-spread issue but it is very much opposed by a few people who want the articles to have no mention of anything to do with Canada. I actually agree with Pretzels that using "North American TV series" is generous but at the same time it is the accepted disambiguation for Queer As Folk and in terms of production, location, setting, financing, and casting the two shows are a perfect match in their national division. That is why i moved it to Skins (North American TV series) rather than Skins (Canadian TV series). Yes it does imply Mexico and a dozen other countries but Skins (North-Central North American TV series) seemed too long and Skins (Canadian-U.S. TV series) would always be open to flipping it to Skins (U.S.-Canadian TV series) and then the matters of spaces or not and hyphen or dash. "North American" was the simplest and least incorrect option. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "North American" doesn't have to imply a connection with every country in North America, so it's not made any less correct by the fact that this show doesn't involve Mexico.--Kotniski (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Would calling it European make it necessarily a Bulgarian, Greek and Serbian show? — Pretzels ^Hii! 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So North American automatically means the US and Canada? It doesn't have to imply a connection to other North American countries, but it simply does. It's not your place to chose which source is right or wrong. Wikipedia goes by verifiability, not truth. If it's verified that the show is a US show (as stated in RS) then that's what we should use, not take it upon our self and pick what nationality the show is based on synthesis. This TIME article calls it an "American remake". In this USA Today article MTV says, "MTV stands by the US adaptation of Skins and the vision of its creator Bryan Elsley". It's already done now, but I think the move is incorrect and misleading. I have asked for more opinions from the TV Project. —Mike Allen 23:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

For once i agree with CloudKade11, "Okay no". So i am willing to fight this on every front and so far am on 3. Skins credits themselves indicate it is a Canadian show. The secondary sources call it American. The filming permits and Directors and Writers Guilds of Canada say the show is Canadian. It is made principally by a Canadian and a British company with two other Canadian companies and an American company being "produced in association with"s. Sources can be wrong. Any source claiming these shows are American is wrong. It is a pro-American POV in the references themselves or it is just ignorance. If i find a source claiming Desperate Housewives is Canadian would you accept it? Exactly. American media is the dominant. They skew coverage of shows made in Canada to downplay Canadian involvement as much as they can because Americans generally don't want Canadian shows on ABC and NBC and FOX. But they are cheaper than reality shows so ABC is buying up as many as it can. I have no objections to what is verifiable so long as it is also true. People on Wikipedia tend to want what is verifiable and fuck whether it is actually true or not. You can create an article that is completely verifiable but if it is all sourced to lies then what kind of article have you written? Pure vandalism. "The standard is verifiability not truth." That means that everything should be true but that just being true isn't enough - it needs some verification. If you want only verifiable then you endorse writing lies just because someone else already did it. Richard Nixon said he is not a crook. That is verifiable. It is so far from the truth that i can't even write this without laughing. If accuracy is misleading then let me lead you astray with my less popular reference. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 00:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The show is, according to all reliable sources, MTV's "American adaptation" of Skins. It stars American actors, is made with American money, deals with (arguably, specifically) American culture, is set in America, has its primary 'reception' and notable facts relate to the fact that it is American. In order to advertise its own Americannness, it modifies the UK Skins logo to incorporate the stars and stripes. By all means, Queer as Folk is arguably the "North American" adaptation of a British show, but Skins USA is no more Canadian than the early episodes of The X-Files. Straightforwardly, it should be moved back, although I appreciate the effort on behalf of editors to 'fairly represent' both sides. But any proclamation that the show is arguably sufficiently Canadian to alter the article's disambiguation to that effect is essentially biased and not based upon any substantive verifiable evidence. Arbitration committee would undoubtedly review the case and see it like this, if it ever came to it, which it shouldn't have to. Put away your own deductions, put away what you see as "the truth", just agree with the sources -- Wikipedia does not and should not be the source of original conclusions; Wikipedia reflects coverage as given by reliable sources, not (possibly faulty, 'original') synthesis.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 03:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't even notice that the logo is practically the American flag. That just about sums this argument up, IMO. It seems Delirious has this mentality that American Wikipedians are trying to Americanize everything on the US Wikipedia. She seems to not realize (or not acknowledge) that Wikipedia has a policy on what is reliable and verifiable. We have already provided sources that verifies this as an American show. Can sources be found that proves this is a Canadian show? —Mike Allen 04:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See, when you have to argue that a Canadian show is North American just to marginally keep happy its American fans then the Americans have won. The example of The X Files fails. It was made by an American for an American audience and took advantage of lower expenses of making it in Canada. The show itself is the most reliable source and the show itself says it is made in Canada almost exclusively by Canadian companies and for Canadian broadcasters. Skins Canada is no more American than Degrassi is American. In order to be marketable in the US the logo incorporates elements of the American flag. Seriously, have any one of you people who claim the show has not a thing to do with Canada looked anywhere beyond what your American sources are telling you? This is about the most blatant case of American media denying a show has Canadian ties as one could ever have. "produced in association with The Movie Network" "produced in association with Movie Central", "This film is protected under the copyright laws of Canada, the United States, and other countries. Any unauthorized exhibition, distribution, or reproduction of this motion picture or videotape or any part thereof (including the soundtrack) may result in criminal penalties." "Arguably sufficiently Canadian.... you know what, this is nothing more than the American broadcaster laying claim to a Canadian-made show and the American media going along with it to the point of burring the Canadian sources at a ratio of i would guess maybe 300 : 1. Many sources spewing the same thing doesn't mean they are right, just that they all agree. Shall we deny the production companies making the show? Shall we deny where it is made? Some here are already calling the predominantly Canadian cast 'all American'. If you have ever had someone come along and claim something just because they could then you would know why i will never accept the USA Today article claiming it is an American show. What all of the American fans of the show who edit here do in coming here to say 'look at all of my sources which say you are wrong are doing is just regurgitating a misrepresentation perpetuated by the American media at the behest of the American broadcaster of the show. Canadian media coverage of tv is nothing at all like it is in the US. The unending pile of references you can produce just simply don't exist here to counter the American claims of its Americanism. A release from the provincial agency that tracks film and television production in Ontario. That is probably the most detailed bit of information i have. Sadly that government agency's website does not retain this information but overwrites it every two weeks so information from this past August is no longer available from their site. Next to that is the end credits of the episodes themselves, which from what i have seen and been told, are excised from the American broadcast and the subsequent stream on mtv.com so the only people who can see the end credits of the episodes are my fellow Canadians. And that will trigger claims of inherent deception should anyone so much as agree with me upon their viewing of the end credits. "just agree with the sources" Funny, that is what i am saying to all of you. Because what i have is not USA Today or The New York Times or The Hollywood Reporter or another acceptable American source i am dismissed and told to fall in line. There are but a handful of Canadian shows that are picked up by American broadcast networks and cable channels. Why does the American media have to claim them to be American? Canadian media does not claim all of the American shows available on Canadian networks and cable are Canadian. It is not so much the American editors here but the American sources known to American editors which they thus rely upon. What none of you probably consider is that i personally am disgusted by this show. I am one of those who most certainly does consider it child porn. I had to view parts of it to get to the end credits in the stream from The Movie Network. Those few seconds have haunted me ever since. I am disgusted with myself for going to such lengths to check for myself whether my position is substantiated by the episodes themselves. I would be thrilled to no ends to be able to claim that an American cable channel is disseminating American-made child porn on a weekly basis. The child porn i consider true but it is personal opinion as legally it is not child porn in Canada - but still too close too it for my comfort. The American-made part of that is not substantiated by the episode itself. As much as i would love to claim this is American child porn it is Canadian-made child porn. So, do i let the Americans have the child porn show and hope they don't lay claim to all of the Canadian non-porn shows which are broadcast in the US or do i approach them all equally on the merits of their production, distribution, and ownership against a gigantic wall of American references which say the shows are not Canadian? Arbitration? Good idea. Lets have some more Americans determine what constitutes a Canadian or Canadian-American tv show. From the time the article was created it took 40 days for someone to come along and say Flashpoint is an American show - 2 days after CBS bought broadcast rights and well before CBS signed on a co-producer of the show. [6] That is but one example of American editors claiming all new shows appearing on American tv are American. Every Canadian show that has been picked up for American distribution has been labelled an American show here on Wikipedia, except maybe Being Erica. It isn't just skins. It isn't because i want the show to be Canadian. It is because i am one of apparently only a couple of people who know where to look for references to such things.

• http://www.canada.com/entertainment/movie-guide/tonight+Skins/4119757/story.html "Directed by Canadians Scott Smith and Samir Rehem, the series was shot in Toronto in 2010. But this teen world is not geographically bound in the series, and could stand in for any big North American city."
• http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/television/article/925811--mtv-worried-skins-violates-child-porn-statutes "MTV’s Skins is a U.S. remake of a British series that built its audience over the past five years ... The new version of Skins was shot in Toronto, as a co-production between MTV, locally based Entertainment One and Company Pictures, a division of the production company that shot the U.K. shows."
• http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2011/01/18/british-tv-shows-american-skins-episodes-shameless.html "Those clever Brits continue to inspire North American television" and "Just this Monday, MTV, The Movie Network and Movie Central premiered Skins, a U.S.-Canada version of a teen-drama series that has been running in the U.K. since 2007."
• http://www.torontolife.com/daily/hype/prime-time/2011/01/18/52756/ "Shot in Toronto and starring a largely Canadian teen cast, the show prides itself on portraying young people as they really are—not squeaky cleaners or spoiled Upper East Siders."
• http://arts.nationalpost.com/2011/01/08/winter-arts-preview-january-television/ "The ensemble cast of mostly unknown actors was formed through open casting calls and includes six Canadians. It was shot largely in Toronto, though, again, the city stands in as Anywhereville, U.S.A. It will air on MTV in the U.S., and is thus primed to be a significant hit thanks to that network’s marketing muscle, though will be shown on The Movie Network/Movie Central in Canada."
• http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=83b907ab-d5a9-4201-9f20-f8edf76bd9ea "An allegation of creating or distributing child pornography is one of the most incendiary statements that can be made - and I'll leave it to others (like, say, lawyers in the US) to assess whether the allegation has any legal basis in the United States - what I'd like to take a look at is what Canadian law says about "child pornography" in the context of artistic works. As we'll see, it would be exceedingly unlikely that Skins would be found to constitute "child pornography" for purposes of Canadian criminal law." Registration required but it is free. An excellent source on the legality of the child porn claim given the show is made in Toronto.
• http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/issues/story.aspx?aid=1000399894 "Laszlo Barna is leaving his role as President of Entertainment One Television effective February 1, 2011." and later "His recent executive producer credits include television series such as the soon-to-air "Skins" (MTV/The Movie Network/Movie Central); "The Bridge" (CBS/CTV); "Call Me Fitz" (HBO Canada), "Haven" (Syfy/Showcase) and the award-winning mini-series "Keep Your Head Up Kid: The Don Cherry Story" (CBC). Barna is the former Chairman of the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association. He is a former board member of the Banff Television Festival and the Canadian Television Fund and Film Ontario."
• http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/Parents+teenagers+please+avert+your+eyes/4106413/story.html "Whereas the original show deals with a group of reprobate teens from Bristol, the North American version - which has surfaced on MTV in the U.S. -focuses on a group of reprobate teens in a no-name North American metropolis (fear of lawsuit perhaps fuelling the decision to keep the setting anonymous?)."
• http://www.avclub.com/articles/there-goes-the-neighborhood-part-1,50108/ "Tonight, remakes of both Being Human and Skins launch, and the similarities between the two are so striking that if we had a system that easily allowed for posting dual reviews of TV shows, I’d just write one piece for the both of ‘em. They’re both promising. They both have moments when they seem like they’re finding their footing and escaping their parent series. They both struggle with moments that are pretty much shot-for-shot remakes. They’re both shot in Canada. And so on."
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11717547 "Skins, considered one of the foremost young British dramas of the past five years, has been remade for a US audience and will air in January. It follows a watered-down version of the UK show that was shown on BBC America with some of the more graphic sex, drugs and nudity removed. The US remake, actually shot in Canada, features similar characters."
• http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/22/defiant-mtv-got-problem-skins/ "Meanwhile, Father John Malo, director of pastoral care at Toronto's St. Michaels' College School -- where "Skins" actor Jesse Carere, 17, was a student before stripping down and showing his bare bottom for the series -- says "we would not encourage" students to watch "Skins.""
• http://www.moviecentral.ca/blogs/mcsupports.aspx "Movie Central is proud to play a key role in the development, licensing and broadcast of Canadian films, investing in acclaimed features such as Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus starring Christopher Plummer, Heath Ledger and Johnny Depp; Michael McGowan's Score the Hockey Musical starring Nelly Furtado, and Olivia Newton-John; Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage featuring the rock band Rush; and the much anticipated sequel, Fubar II, starring David Lawrence and Paul Spence. In addition, Movie Central has helped develop an exceptional slate of original drama series for television, including Call Me Fitz, starring Jason Priestley; Less Than Kind starring Jesse Camacho; Pillars of the Earth, starring Donald Sutherland, Allison Pill, and Gordon Pinsent; Ken Finkeleman's new series Good Dog; and Skins, the North American take on the popular UK series."
• http://www.moviecentral.ca/groups/skins/default.aspx "This title is one of many Movie Central-supported Canadian movies and series."
• http://www.montrealgazette.com/entertainment/movie-guide/week+films+music/4119104/story.html "Filmed in Toronto, Skins is essentially the sitcom The Wonder Years, as written and directed by Charlie Sheen."
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ey8tQRxtdBI Entertainment Tonight Canada on set. "Skins is a North American remake of the UK smash hit..." and yes i know it is from youtube but one could always {{cite episode}} it since this is a clip from a tv show.
• http://anhkhoi.blogspot.com/2010/06/british-tv-series-skins-will-have.html "The possibility of seeing the hit British TV series Skins have have a remake is no longer a rumour. In fact, The Movie Network, a Canadian premium cable network, announced its intention to make a Canadian remake of Skins. The Canadian Skins is executive produced by Charlie Pattinson, George Faber, John Morayniss and Laszlo Barna, with the pilot written by Bryan Elsley, a co-creator of the original UK version. Elsley also serves as showrunner." Yes, for the ardent this will not do as it is a blogger account but if you look at it it is telling you there is a press release to be found out there ;)
• http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/June2010/14/c4709.html that press release alluded to in the above source... "Produced in association with MTV U.S., Skins is a one-hour series produced as a Canada/UK co-venture from E1 Entertainment and Company Pictures. Based on the award-winning and edgy UK hit series, this teen drama follows the lives of a group of charismatic, but troubled youth as they lurch towards adulthood. Skins is scheduled to go into production in Toronto this summer, and will premiere on The Movie Network and Movie Central in 2011."
• http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/December2010/17/c6259.html "

• The North American adaptation of the groundbreaking U.K. series
• Premieres Monday, January 17, 2011 on Movie Central and The Movie Network
• Featuring six Canadian lead cast members selected from open casting calls

TORONTO, Dec. 17 /CNW/ - This January, Corus Entertainment's Movie Central (Western Canada) and Astral's The Movie Network (Eastern Canada) are taking viewers inside the lives of a group of high school friends as they stumble through the mine field of adolescence, one raw, raunchy, wild step at a time. Skins, the North American adaptation of the edgy U.K. series, begins Monday, January 17 at 9 p.m. PT on Movie Central and 10 p.m. ET on The Movie Network. this is one to read in full as it would solidify everything i am saying but i don't think reprinting it in full would be allowed here.

Also, the logo used in the article is not consistent through all North American broadcasters. See the one from The Movie Network, broadcaster for the eastern half of Canada. http://www.themovienetwork.ca/series/skins/images/header.jpg Which is the same for Movie Central save for the black background being of different dimensions http://www.moviecentral.ca/Themes/MovieCentral/Images/Series/skins/series-banner-960x100.jpg

I am certain there is more to be found but you pretty much have to know where to find it rather than rely on google to give it to you and that takes sometime and i need a break from this. Almost all non-Canadian media call it an American series because that is what MTV calls it. I live where Movie Central is the broadcaster (and one of the production companies too) and here it is a Canadian series or the North American version. If you can find Canadian media that is not targetting an international audience then they don't call it an American series. They are also the media not so readily supplied to you by google. Most American media shy away from even mentioning that it is made in Toronto unless the author is decidedly not a fan and then it is presented in a "blame Canada" tone. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

• So, to summarize: we have reliable sources referring to this show as an "American remake" and a "US version", but we also have reliable sources calling it a "US-Canada version" and a "North American adaptation". When reliable sources disagree, we should try to use a descriptor which incorporates both. "North American TV series" allows for both interpretations. I'm not seeing the problem here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I admit I was not aware of the Canadian news articles (I just did a google search and posted what was found, and it was mostly American sites). Since many sources call it a "North American adaptation", that is the logical way to go. I appoloze if it looked like I was pushing some America agenda. —Mike Allen 00:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm English (well, Barbadian by birth...) and don't give a damn about US vs Canada. I would point out that those are all Canadian sources though, and some maybe overstate the "Canadianness" of the show. (But hey, if Wikipedia drives home the distinction for long enough, the American media when they come to the lead section for clarification will start using its terms anyway!) I don't and never did dispute the show being filmed in or made by Canadians, I just didn't see compelling reasoning of its being a "Canadian" production on that basis. Also, as for the logo, you're right that it airs as clouds etc. on TV, but the promo images which identify the show did exclusively use the US flag. But I'm beating a dead horse. I would suggest sounding less passionate about the whole thing, though.~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 01:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The passion comes probably from my many attempts to re-write the article on Flashpoint to be more flowing and failing every time (and thus not ever saving it). If someone has only just the other day stumbled into Flashpoint while channel-surfing and comes to Wikipedia then they would be so confused by how things are presented there. One sentence or paragraph on American and the next on Canadian. Bouncing back and forth, sometimes not sure what is being referred to. Then the conflict in how the episodes are divided into seasons by the broadcasters and the Canadian DVD releases sort-of corresponding to the production schedule (which is different from the broadcast schedule) not being the same as the American DVD releases. It is a big mess and very awkward to read. Not wanting to see that develop on the articles for other shows that are made in Canada with intended distribution in both counties (such as the remakes of Skins and Being Human) has me trying to ensure the articles develop from the start with accurate information that reflects where the shows have come from. If one looks at the early press releases for Skins from MTV on thefutoncritic.com you can see MTV acknowledging the show is made in Canada by Canadians but that sort of diminishes as the press releases get closer to the premiere date and the campaign of "MTV's skins US" gains momentum.
As to the promotional logo used in the article: i) It is on Commons as "own work" so there is no source for it; ii) I have yet to find a pre-premiere logo from a Canadian source to be able to definitively agree or disagree with it being the standard for both countries. The uploader of the logo and creator of this article is Andrewlinn957 (talk · contribs). He doesn't edit regularly and does not have email enabled so i left a note on his talk page asking for clarification regarding his upload. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 07:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to hear where he got it! If he made it himself, I'd remove it...~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 02:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not had time to read through the whole of this discussion. I appreciate that the idea of the USA creating a great piece of comedic Social Realism is beyond imagination. It does not surprise me that the title name suggests it is a purely USA show, however the show is fantasy and as fantasy should not be taken seriously. It worries me I have to remind people of this, if it was made in Canada with Canadians then exemplify this and add it in. I would also like to point out that 'Skins North America' is a very close adaptation to its original 'Skins' (UK). Thus as far as I am concerned country of origin IS UK/Britain/England, all the three mentioned would be closer to the current suggestion that it originated in the USA. This is also true for 'Being Human', another television show that has been wrongly classified as originating in the USA. I do not quite understand why this has been miss stated . . . perhaps an over enthused sense of nationalism? I suppose it's interesting to see that both 'Skins' and 'Being Human' of the North American variety pay close homage to their originators. I can only take solace in the knowledge that 'Shameless North America' truthfully represents its place of origin as 'England'.

In reference to the idea of the title maintaining 'North American', I would agree . . . I appreciate that people get quite passionate about the articles they have added too, and so they should, but this seems to have turned into an argument. The only viable argument against using 'North America' is that it suggests Mexico is also associated with the show, but may I remind everyone here how easily one refers to Europe or Africa as though it were a country! Both are of course continents, with various independent countries as well as distinguished cultures and socio political constructs. They accept the overly simplified term 'Europe' so why should we not accept 'North America', which comparatively seems to be pretty specific. As long as it is clearly stated in the article who worked on what and when (which I beleive it does), then I do not think you need to get too overly upset. I would go as far as to say you could simply state 'American version'. However unfortunately this may once again suggest a basis within the USA, as the USA cannot come up with its own national identifier in reference to the name of inhabitants who live within its national boundaries, thus it uses the name given to those who inhabit its continental boundaries instead.

I do not feel comfortable changing this article, as I understand the process seems to have been laborious, but can somebody please at least consider the correct placement of UK for country of Origin? - very much appreciated. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.1.207 (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to state that you are confused about what 'country of origin' is supposed to mean. They are referring to the production of the series, not the origin of the original series. If there was a Russian remake of Skins, its origins would be labeled as Russian. This has nothing to do with nationalism.

And please do not turn this into a stereotypical 'America cannot come up with their own origianl ideas' discussion, because it's a tiring topic that leads to nowhere. I am certain the same thing could be said about the UK when it comes to their endless collection of period dramas, but it has no value at all to the discussion. --172.162.22.17 (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The decision to cease broadcast of the show makes it clear that, no matter where it was filmed, or who the actors were, this is British pornogrpahy being broadcast on American screens. 212.137.36.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

delirious & lost

Just making this to tell you how you were wrong to make this the "North American TV series". It's not our fault Canada didn't pick up Skins, Being Human or QaF first. Don't be jealous that Canada can't really come up with anything but Degrassi. Also, another heads up, don't go on and change "The X-Factor (U.S. series)" to "The X-Factor (North American TV series)" and put Canada's station on where the show will air where the channels are listed. They will tear you up right there let me tell you that. Please grow up. 75.62.133.33 (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I know this will make me sound like I am basically trying to prove my point, but i sort of am. I have to agree with you entirely. "The X Factor (U.S.)" is, from what I have understood thus far, not scheduled as of yet to air in Canada, at least in the exact version as here in the US. Seriously, just because delirious & lost tries to prove his point by finding so many sources that go his way, he clearly entirely ignored ALL sources saying it is a US series instead of a North American series. Like the user above said, please grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Core2012 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

HER. SHE.
The X Factor's US version will unfortunately be on tv in Canada. Unlike yourself i know the difference between when something is MADE IN CANADA versus SHOWN IN CANADA. As for ignoring the billion American references which say X is American it is pretty much required to get to the truth. You really need to learn that American media publications habitually lie to their audience. It is un-American to admit that Being Human is made in Montreal by a French-language company and stars Canadians and Americans. Of course 99% of American media will absolutely ignore all of the Canadian origin of the show and simply call it a Syfy show because that is its American broadcaster. Canada did pick up Skins, The Listener, Being Human, The Kennedys, Flashpoint, Queer As Folk, The Bridge, 18 to Life, and every other show that qualifies as CanCon well before any US broadcaster. That the shows have a broadcast commitment in Canada is a condition on their getting funding / tax credits. All of the above named shows and the like began production having a Canadian broadcaster in place while often an American broadcaster came in significantly later. The gigantic American media however will downplay this as much as possible to the point of denying it exists when publishing articles on most of these shows. All of the sources which claim the above named shows are US shows are 100% absolutely incorrect. You can have a million sources but a million sources full of lies is still a pack of lies. And you are eating it up.
One of my personal interests is Canadian television. More specifically how it is manipulated and expropriated by Americans when they see something they like and how often Canadians go along with it. Any magazine can say a show is Canadian or American or Irish. I tend to go to who is broadcasting the show and more so to who is making the show. Here is a pisser for you. Skins is CanCon. Ask any of the Canadian broadcasters or the Canadian Media Foundation or any of the production companies or the people that approve tax credits. It is even in the press releases from Movie Central and The Movie Network and it is on Movie Central's website right now as i write this. ([7]) To qualify as CanCon the copyright to the programme must be held by a Canadian citisen or a Canadian company whose majority owner is a Canadian citisen. That my friends means that Skins is not owned by MTV.
Would you like me to point out the forthcoming and current shows which are Canadian? rookie blue and Combat Hospital are two of them. Murdoch Mysteries is another. The Borgias and The Tudors are two more. Can't forget Camelot which you see on starz in the USA. There are more Canadian shows on your channel guide than you probably would like there to be. You just don't know most of them have anything at all to do with Canada because like i said before American media tends to avoid such things when writing about the shows. I bet you don't know that until CBS bought the company in 2007 the whole CSI franchise was majority owned by the Canadian company Alliance Atlantis. O and how can i forget that Syfy recently acquired Lost Girl. It is to start broadcast of season 2 in Canada on 4 September yet i suppose you would argue that since Syfy is showing season 1 in the USA that it is not a Canadian show even though it is the highest rated show in the history of the channel it is shown on. Like i said, more shows from Canada and Canadians than it appears you would ever want on your tv. How could i exclude the Stargate franchise and Sanctuary too. And you don't know most of them. And that is just broadcast networks and major cable channels targetting adults. Kids shows are a whole other story.
Also, it is rather inappropriate to create a section to specifically bitch about me in the hopes that i eventually read it and give in to your demands that i fall in line with the plethora of lies in the US media. Which i now have read some 9 weeks later. And clearly my answer to your demand is NO. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 14:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Synopsis

This synopsis "The pilot of the new North American series is an almost shot-for-shot remake of its British counterpart, but the show deviates from the original UK show's plot in subsequent episodes" tells the reader NOTHING about the show. I came here to find out what this show is about, but I still have no clue since I have never seen the UK show. Someone needs to fix this section. Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.69.26 (talk) 20:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

So you are suggesting that it is incumbent on Wiki to publicise details of a British pornographic show being forced onto American airwaves, in return for the British taking (and stripi-mining) high-quality American programming to fulfil their quota of "foreign" programming ?? -- 212.137.36.228 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

What the hell. . .? No, she was just saying that the synopsis will actually need to have a synopsis, not some statement declaring that the show was basically copied from another show. Like a summary of what goes on, like "A group of teenagers deal with blah blah blah." Xenophobia, anyone?--76.77.200.228 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As this series is an adaptation of another show, the comparisons are relevant but should be trimmed down and placed in its own section "Comparisons to UK version". Furthermore, the character section should be a stand alone article and the charcters should be described as they are in the US series as if there were no UK series. The article List of Skins characters is the place for the character comparisons. For example, in the section of the "Effy" paragraph, it should be noted that in the US version, the character is named Eura and is played by Eleanor Zichy. Brendanmccabe (talk) 02:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)