Jump to content

Talk:The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alex 21 (talk | contribs) at 05:44, 2 June 2020 (→‎Gutting article to create a Season 1 article: Replying to Pyxis Solitary (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Second season

Since the series has been renewed for a second season and is now an anthology, how should we handle this article? I'm thinking, either:

  • 1. This article is renamed The Haunting (TV series) and it includes information from both seasons

or

  • 2. It stays as is and we include info about season 2, until there's enough information (cast, episodes, production, etc.) and it's then spun-off into its own article, titled The Haunting of Bly Manor.

Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say definitely the first option. The series is now titled The Haunting; if the article can be split into separate season articles, it can (although there's almost no content to support that at the moment), but we should just treat it as a regular show and include all information here for now. -- /Alex/21 23:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The series has not been retitled "The Haunting". The shorthand "Haunting" has been used for marketing the second season, but the title of Season 2 is not "The Haunting: Bly Manor". And Season 1 has not been renamed by Netflix, Amblin, and Paramount as "The Haunting: Hill House". The official name of Season 2 is The Haunting of Bly Manor. Season 1 remains The Haunting of Hill House. Changing the article title was done without consensus. And even if a handful of editors had gone along with changing the original title of this article, it would still be WP:OR because it would not be supported with reliable sources. Additionally, regarding titles of articles WP:UCRN states: "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)." I don't need to provide a links-bomb of all the sources that exist where "The Haunting of Hill House" is the name used for the series before the concept of an anthology got the green-light as the second season -- and the first season continues to be called "The Haunting of Hill House". See discussion below for the best way to handle Season 2/"The Haunting of Bly Manor". Pyxis Solitary yak 09:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the name of the article

When did editors of this TV article decide that its title was going to be different than the official name of the series, The Haunting of Hill House, and the multitude of sources (e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10) about it that confirm the name?  What possible reason was given for going against Netflix, Amblin Television, and Paramount Television?
The title change violates WP:NOR. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the editor who moved the page, obviously, and in fact I've had virtually no prior involvement in the article — but it's still fairly obvious that the page move happened soon after a second season, to be titled The Haunting of Bly Manor, was announced. So, basically, somebody original-researched a new umbrella title for the overall anthology even though there's no almost no actual content about Bly Manor yet beyond very brief acknowledgements that it's happening.
Instead, I'm going to suggest the alternative that this should more or less follow the American Horror Story template, where we do not cram everything about the entire series into one article: there is still a basic overview article about the overall anthology at the umbrella title, but all of the content that's specific to a particular season is in a separate season sub-article titled with the actual title of that particular season: American Horror Story: Murder House, American Horror Story: Asylum, American Horror Story: Coven, and on and so forth. But, of course, at this point, there's basically nothing we can say or source about Bly Manor yet except that it's been announced, so there's not yet grounds for a standalone article about it.
Accordingly, the way forward I propose is this:
  1. Move this article back to The Haunting of Hill House.
  2. Start a separate article about The Haunting of Bly Manor when the time comes, most likely in late 2019 or early 2020, that there's actually sourceable stuff to say about it.
  3. By the time a Bly Manor splitout is justified, there will most likely be a clearer indication of what the reliably sourceable overall umbrella title for the project is: whether that's The Haunting, Mike Flanagan's The Haunting, Netflix Horror Story or something else. So then either we can split out an overview article about the project as a whole, which would cover the general aspects that are common to both Hill House and Bly Manor but link to the season-specific articles for season-specific content, or try to figure out what else to do if there's still no clearly sourceable umbrella title — it is in fact entirely possible that we will just have to treat Hill House and Bly Manor as separate standalone series, which crosslink each other as related but have no parent article at all because there's no reliably sourceable umbrella title for a parent article to be given, and thus both just get listed directly in the disambiguation page for The Haunting.
But for the time being, the existing article should rightly be moved back to The Haunting of Hill House, since as of right now that's clearly the expected and sourced title of the thing we can actually write and source actual content about. Bearcat (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike FX which titled its series American Horror Story (1 2) with an ancillary name for each season, Netflix has not titled its series "The Haunting", nor has it announced that The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor will in the future be known under the series name The Haunting. Therefore, I:
      support moving this article back to The Haunting of Hill House (TV series)
      support the creation of a The Haunting of Bly Manor standalone article.
I suggest that a  ==Season 2==  section be added to this article which explains that the series became an anthology after Season 1, provides some information about the second season, and includes a  {{Main|The Haunting of Bly Manor}}  template link to the article. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Btw and fyi, there's a paranormal drama anthology series called A Haunting 1.) Pyxis Solitary yak 03:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the creation of separate articles. Support if they are separate season articles, but not separate series articles. They are separate seasons, not separate series. Also: [1]: "The Haunting Continues in 2020". 193.115.82.55 (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's using the word haunting as a verb, not as a title. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you know this with certainty how? 193.115.83.179 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Consider that there's a difference between "Stuff being haunted continues in 2019" and "The series which has been officially titled The Haunting continues in 2019". The onus is on you to prove that your source means the latter before it constitutes a valid reason against the move request. It's certainly not inherently obvious that it means the latter rather than the former, so you need better proof than that. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are verbs often capitalized? No. When are they? When they are used in a title. Now, for your personal definition of the sentence? 193.115.83.179 (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, that link makes the title of this series "The Haunting Continues" — because the word Continues is also capitalized in that same sentence, yet is somehow not part of what you're arguing that link confirms the title to be. You can't cherrypick just the convenient parts of a sentence, discard the inconvenient parts, and pretend that's a mic drop: capitalization doesn't prove that it's the "official title" if the next word in the sentence, after the end of what you're claiming it proves as the "official title", is still capitalized too. Bearcat (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. "Continues" should be noted in the title as well. Cheers for that. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. "The Haunting Continues" is even more clearly not the "umbrella title" for the whole series — it's just marketing bumf written in marketing style, not evidence of the title per se. There is a style of PR/marketing writing out there in the world, in which words get overcapitalized completely without regard to standard English capitalization rules — companies' or organizations' own press releases about themselves, for example, will capitalize every word in a person's job title ("Account Representative", "Chief Financial Officer", "Associate Professor", "Executive Producer", etc.) — but obviously we don't replicate that style of writing here, because we follow standard capitalization rules and not companies' own marketing bumf. So what is or isn't capitalized in a piece of marketing writing isn't proof of what is or isn't the title — what we would need to see is one or more pieces of reliable source journalism, such as an article in Variety or The Hollywood Reporter, which clearly uses The Haunting as an umbrella title that encompasses both Hill House and Bly Manor. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather floor the brakes on presuming an umbrella name based on journalistic writing. As a former newswriter in broadcast news (which also included entertainment news), and a reporter for news wire services, it was common to refer to TV shows with keywords after their names were established (for example: Sabrina the Teenage Witch name was stated first, then it would be referred to as "Sabrina", then the full name stated again before ending the news story). It's still done today. The umbrella name, if there were to be one, should come from the mothership, which for THoHH and THoBM is Netflix. Per WP:UCRN: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" and WP:NAMECHANGES: "give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced." Pyxis Solitary yak 03:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia policy includes article titles. For how to title an article see WP:COMMONNAME. For when a title can be changed see WP:NAMECHANGES. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those relate to the splitting of articles. The Haunting of Bly Manor is a separate season, not a separate series, and hence should only be split to a season article, same as the first season, The Haunting of Hill House. My comment did not relate to the titling of articles, but the splitting of them. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case you haven't actually read the entire contents of this discussion: Netflix has not announced that the umbrella name for their series is "The Haunting". And in the requested move discussion below, you state: "Support series as The Haunting". Pyxis Solitary yak 02:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not modify my comments. And you have given no support or basis for separating the articles out into separate series articles, rather than separate season articles. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was not "modified". Its content was not changed. But since you seem to be unaware of Wikipedia guidelines for talk pages: see WP:TALKO > Fixing format errors: "include fixing indentation levels". As it stands, you did not respond to anyone's comment. You can, of course, create your own discussion topic.
You also appear to not comprehend the comments made by other editors. Additionally, you also seem to not be able to fully grasp Wikipedia policies ... again: WP:OR. Read it. And WP:TITLE. Read it. Read them both word-for--word. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of TALKO: Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection. I have objected - do you comprehend that? I've provided a source for the title, direct from Netflix, and you still have no basis to split a season to a separate series article. Do try to keep up, buddy-o. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved back to original title, per consensus in the two discussions on this page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]



The Haunting (TV series)The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) – On 21 February 2019, The Haunting of Hill House was renewed for a second season as an anthology, with The Haunting of Bly Manor as the name for the second season. On the same date, two editors discussed changing title of this article. The following day, The Haunting of Hill House (TV series) page title was changed to The Haunting (TV series). On 4 May 2019, I discovered that the article's title had been changed. As I pointed out in my comment in the "Changing the name of the article" discussion, Netflix "has not titled its series "The Haunting", nor has it announced that The Haunting of Hill House and The Haunting of Bly Manor will in the future be known under the series name The Haunting." Neither have series producers Amblin Television and Paramount Television. The policy for naming articles states preference for: "the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)". The policy for changing the name of an article states: "give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change is announced ... If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well." Reliable sources (for example, The New York Times, Screen Rant, TV Guide, Radio Times, Hypable) not only continue to use The Haunting of Hill House when reporting on the series, but a name change to "The Haunting" has not been announced by the network and producers that decide what name their series is going to be known by. Pyxis Solitary yak 09:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - the title should match the sources, and the content should be largely limited to the "Hill House" episodes. Time will tell if the industry considers this a "season" or a standalone limited series. For now, treating them as two separate series is the safer option. -- Netoholic @ 10:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are a ton of sources using "The Haunting of Hill House," including the main source, Netflix. What is there using "The Haunting" - a tweet? That very tweet is from "The Haunting of Hill House" and there is no twitter account for "The Haunting" or "The Haunting of Bly Manor." Guessing about what sources might do in the future is conjecture, right now sources are almost universally using the original name. I support the move back to the original name.--LowRise (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In re "series as The Haunting": see WP:OR. Pyxis Solitary yak 02:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Netflix already describes the series continuing in 2020 as The Haunting, as previously stated, and the opposing comment has no basis. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. It doesn't. You appear to be unaware of the use of key words in promotional language. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your personal opinion on the topic. 193.115.83.179 (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion above, User:Bearcat states that the word "haunting" is being used "as a verb, not as a title." I've stated that it's a keyword being used to promote the forthcoming season. On its official Twitter account for THoHH, Netflix advertised the new second season as: "A new Haunting is coming."
Whether the use of the word "haunting" is how you see it, or whether it is being used as a verb or a keyword, at this point in time there is no definitive announcement by Netflix (and series producers) that the series has been officially renamed "Haunting "  or  "The Haunting ". Pyxis Solitary yak 05:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to support the use "as a verb, not as a title". 193.115.83.179 (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Status of the series

As it stands, THoHH is the title of the entire series, and it has been renewed for a second SEASON, not a second SERIES, per RS. The requirement for clarifications of June still exist, and a miniseries is no longer a miniseries once it has been confirmed for a second season - you cannot argue with the sources, they specifically say it is a second season of THoHH. All sources are either published upon the first season's released and before the series' renewal, or refer to the series as it was, not what it will be or currently is.

The status quo should remain while the status of the series is in discussion. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot argue with the sources, they specifically say it is a second season of THoHH." -- they also say it's a "miniseries". And the second season storyline has nothing to do with The Haunting of Hill House.
This article may very well stay as-is and fall under an umbrella title, just as all the seasons of American Horror Story have (see 14:00, 4 May 2019 comment by Bearcat above). Until such time, what the RSs provide is the information the article also provides. Pyxis Solitary yak 11:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, all sources referring to the series as a miniseries were either published upon the first season's released and before the series' renewal, or refer to the series as it was, not what it will be or currently is. What the reliable series state is that The Haunting of Hill House has been renewed for a second season, not a second related series. That automatically rules out any current state of the series as a miniseries. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re "miniseries": The Paste source was published October 10, 2018 -- and the Junkee source was published February 22, 2019 (the day after season 2, The Haunting of Bly Manor, was announced). Pyxis Solitary yak 07:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again yet again, all sources referring to the series as a miniseries were either published upon the first season's released and before the series' renewal, or refer to the series as it was, not what it will be or currently is. Furthermore, one source and its one reviewer that says "miniseries" twice in the article does not necessarily solidify the content as true; it needs to be referred to as such by a wide range of sources to be true and not just by one reviewer. If that one article did not exist and the personal review (so not exactly a reliable source, and more of a blog entry) of that one reviewer wasn't available, what would you have to fall back on? 115.64.238.117 (talk) 10:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sources met the requirements of WP:RELIABLE and WP:SIGCOV. You have neither requested comments from other editors on this talk page, nor announced a request on WT:WPTV.
You have used more than one IP address -- 220.244.89.101 and 115.64.238.117 -- to dispute the same content and your are gaming the system.
As 220.244.89.101 (Australia - TPG Telecom):
As 115.64.238.117 (Australia - TPG Telecom):
By deleting cited content, you have engaged in tendentious editing. The pattern of edits that you have engaged in under two different IP addresses is disruptive editing. Pyxis Solitary yak 12:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the sources are being disputed and challenged. Both the links you just cited are guidelines; WP:CHALLENGE is a policy. The content you've added is being challenged, based on the fact that what you're adding is the opinion of a single reviewer, and that is the only website that you are citing, and the only one you are able to, as the series is referred to as such in such a minimal manner. Understand that you do not WP:OWN this page, and thus it is up to you to defend your content in the manner requested. You have failed this.
Now, for your attempted listing, do look up what a dynamic IP is, then get back to me once you understand. If you need me to explain the technical details, I'll be happy to. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 13:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Any attempt at WP:CHALLENGE was nullified when two sources were included. You may not like the sources, but your personal opinions do not create policies.
2. "the opinion of a single reviewer". Sources is plural. There are two. No one OWNs this article -- including you.
3. No need to read the yada yada about IP address. You're located in Australia, and whether you're editing Wikipedia from home, university, work, or a cafe on the side of the road ... both IP addresses you've used are provided by an Australian Internet service. You're still the one, same person in Australia diddling on this article.
4. You want consensus? Do an RfC, or at minimum ask editors who roam WT:WPTV to come to this talk page and contribute their say. Pyxis Solitary yak 14:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources were challenged, reasons provided. The first source was released before the renewal, making it outdated and therefore useless to the argument at hand. But hey, you've got great detective skills. And you're more than welcome to hold an RFC or post to WP:TV, given that it is you trying to implement your edits on the apparent miniseries status of the series. I'm not implementing anything here, I'm restoring the article to how it's been since its creation. But until you do so and gain a consensus for your contested bold edits, the status quo remains. 115.64.238.117 (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Split

‎Pyxis Solitary, please state your opposition to the split. None has been provided. I split the article to make the distinct separation between the first and second seasons. As the articles stood, there was only an article for the parent series and the second season, as, yes, Bly Manor is a second season and not a sequel series, as determined by reliable sources and past discussions. The split therefore separated these seasons and made content clearer. The article was split with the correct attribution and thus was acceptable and allowable per Wikipedia policy, and not every split requires a discussion to go ahead, so I recommend that you recind your OWN accusation; an OWN behaviour would, for example, include reverting good-faith edits, without a reason or because it was "unnecessary", or requiring your personal approval. -- /Alex/21 04:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gutting article to create a Season 1 article

This top-to-bottom article restructure edit was not discussed in the article Talk page prior to being done. This latest edit is an example of WP:OWNERSHIP by User:Alex 21 over this article -- an attitude first displayed when he renamed the article on 22 February 2019 -- which resulted in the page move being reversed on 14 May 2019 after objection by editors.
These "my way or the highway" edits are not examples of WP:BOLD editing, where editors are encouraged to "fix problems, correct grammar, add facts, make sure wording is accurate, etc.," but also advised to be WP:CAREFUL. They're a one-finger salute to other editors. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 05:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged the two sections on this topic. Please actually respond to my comments above, where I have explained my good-faith edits in detail and noted the lack of content-based explanation behind your revert, instead of merely throwing out accusations; remember, talk pages are to discuss content not conduct. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 05:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am respecting you by discussing this content civilly; please do the same by taking part in this discussion with your replies civilly. Thank you. -- /Alex/21 05:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pyxis Solitary, I see you are active on this talk page. Do you, or do you not, intend to actually discuss the content civilly? -- /Alex/21 05:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]