Talk:And Then There Were None (miniseries)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Critical Reception[edit]

Two thirds of the very long "Critical Reception" section simply reprint large excerpts from the Daily Telegraph reviews for the first and third episodes. Should it, at the very least, be condensed a bit?Sadiemonster (talk) 12:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Read WP:TVRECEPTION: "Reviews should be paraphrased as much as possible" –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 14:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Series[edit]

It's British and should therefore not be described by the hateful word "miniseries". Mr Larrington (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Character Section[edit]

This seems completely redundant to the cast section, which does not need to include every actor involved in the production, only the main cast. Christiefan1 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Characters come under plot. Cast come under production which ideally should have a sub section Casting and how they were chosen REVUpminster (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Except there's no real information on that. So basically we have two lists of the same thing. Christiefan1 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, most TV series articles seem to have a hybrid of "cast and characters," so I would propose, if anything, they be combined into one section. Christiefan1 (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:TVCAST states clearly that there is either a cast list or a character list. (There is no bolding of actor or character names.) WP:MOSTV also gives the structure of the page and order of its sections.–Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I think in keeping with WP:TVCAST, we may want to shorten the cast list to the 10 main characters as well. No one beyond those 10 is really notable, nor do any of the actors portraying them have Wikipedia pages of their own. Christiefan1 (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I have altered the page to reflect CURRENT convention but this has changed continually over the six years I have been doing TV pages and no doubt will change again. Check out history of TV manual of style REVUpminster (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Series length[edit]

The series was 180 minutes in total. It was not 60 minutes long and using a ref that is about episode one as though it applied to the entire series is false and misleading to the reader. MarnetteD|Talk 01:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. The editor doesn't seem to understand the MOS:TV, and can't seem to differentiate between an episodic series, where each story is free-standing, and a mini-series, where each episode is part of a single story the series tells. In the former case, we use episode run-time; in the latter, we use total run-time. --Drmargi (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
First there are three refs that about episode 1,2,3 respectively, therefore isn't a misleading. Second, episodic series isn't with each story is free-standing, so it's no way to differ mini-series and episodic series. Therefore i tend to say it's you who does not seem to understand the MOS:TV at all, dispite clearly having a way to use that as excuse to preveting those whom you're holding a grudge against from improving the article as a way to quench your personal rage, therefore i'll have to definite WP:COMPETENCE problems with this one.114.64.251.194 (talk) 19:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Talk to you both tomorrow. It's very late in Beijing now.114.64.251.194 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is not the first time you have insinuated that MarnetteD and I are one person. We're not. We're two people, of two genders, living in two states. Moreover, we have no grudge. We're simply correcting errors made by an editor who seems to lack understanding of Wikipedia policy and practices. Let's get that clear once and for all. Second of all, a mini-series tells one story over multiple episodes; in those cases, we note the entire run-time. (See: Pride and Prejudice, which is also a mini-series adaptation of a single novel.) Individual episode run-times are misleading, because they suggest the mini-series runs the length of one episode. --Drmargi (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. |runtime= is supposed to be the runtime of individual episodes, not the runtime for the entire miniseries I'm not sure where MOS:TV factors into this, as it really doesn't get into runtimes. What am I missing?
"Individual episode run-times are misleading, because they suggest the mini-series runs the length of one episode" - No, total series runtime = num_episodes x runtime. In this case that's 180 = 3 x 60. --AussieLegend () 20:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Ahhhh! I see the problem. Before {{Infobox television film}} was merged with {{Infobox television}} runtime specified the total runtime. It doesn't any more. --AussieLegend () 20:23, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The main thing is that the infobox is about the series in total - not about the individual episodes. At the moment it states that the series is 60 minutes long which it isn't. If this had been a multi-year ongoing series that would be different. Until this IPs edits it had read 180 minutes for quite some time. IMO it should be reverted to that version. MarnetteD|Talk 20:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Good catch on the merge AussieLegend. I have seen that sort of thing happen on the TV and film project many times over the years. The documentation for the template could use some updating. Thanks for taking the time to track things down. MarnetteD|Talk 20:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, is that the problem? I thought it was spelled out in the MOS, but minor matter. Aussie, would you update the template directions to add a sentence clarifying that mini-series run-time should be the total time, not the individual episode time? --Drmargi (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


DAB title[edit]

A better question might be – if this is a miniseries, then why isn't the article at And Then There Were None (miniseries)?... Just doing that might clear up the "runtime" in the infobox issue. --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
"the infobox is about the series in total - not about the individual episodes" - That's true for every television series, but we still show the runtime for individual episodes. Many TV series are just "really long miniseries" and, indeed, miniseries are just short TV series. Lost was effectively a 121 episode "miniseries". By contrast, you couldn't call The Big Bang Theory a "really long miniseries" though. I don't see an issue with moving this article to And Then There Were None (miniseries), as it's in line with WP:NCTV but runtime is bound to cause issues in the future, so I think miniseries runtimes need to be discussed to get some wider input. To make matters worse, Infobox television has never specified that runtimes for miniseries should be the series total runtime, and many miniseries articles used that infobox even before the merge. --AussieLegend () 06:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, this is a British programme, shouldn't it rather be And Then There Were None (TV serial)? See WP:NCTV. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
You are correct Dark Cocoa Frosting. Whether in the UK or the US a three episode show like this shouldn't be DABed as a series. You should wait a few days to get more responses. If and when there is a final consensus I would think you should perform the move since the idea originated with you. MarnetteD|Talk 17:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I missed that this conversation had started earlier so I've move the subheader up. "Serial" is the better designation for a UK show. "Miniseries" is much more of a US term. The fact that IMDB labels everything that isn't an ongoing series as a "mini" is another reason that WP:RS/IMDB exists. MarnetteD|Talk 17:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
NeitherThe Big Bang Theory or Lost were miniseries - long or otherwise. I would be thunderstruck if any WP:RS labeled them as such. MarnetteD|Talk 17:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. A miniseries is typically a single story. I assumed that was your argument behind listing a single figure for the runtime, rather than an average figure for each of the episodes. Lost was also a single story. A miniseries is a short series, so you could argue that Lost is no different to a miniseries because it told a single story, it just did it in a lot more episodes. That's why I put "really long miniseries" in quotation marks. It was simply an analogy. --AussieLegend () 17:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Lost was actually many stories (unstuck in time) cobbled together :-) While I see where you are coming from on this IMO you have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a miniseries. To quote from out article about miniseries they tell "a story in a predetermined, limited number of episodes." Thus, shows like Lost and The Big Bang Theory are not miniseries. In the US they started as TV specials that were broadcast over a few nights. For instance QBVII was shown over three nights. As their popularity grew they could be shown over several weeks or even months but there was always a predetermined length before they began airing. Another important item is that many they preempted regular programs for the time slots that they aired in - that is the chief difference from UK shows. As to the assertion that they tell one story Roots, The Winds of War etc etc each told multiple stories. Centennial is a prime example as it consisted of different stories and characters from different decades that were brought together in one narrative. Please understand that I am old enough to have watched the original programs and the lived through the changes that the genre went through. The situation may well have been different in Australia and I doubt that I am going to change your mind with all of this. Also my apologies if any of this causes you offense. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Every miniseries is "many stories cobbled together". There are very few, if any, TV programs or movies that are completely linear. I am well aware what constitutes a miniseries and again, I wasn't actually stating that Lost was a miniseries, it was an analogy. Miniseries also says A miniseries is distinguished from an ongoing television series, which do not usually have a predetermined number of episodes and may continue for several years. A miniseries is a miniature series. The only real difference between the two is the number of episodes (and obviously the time taken to air the episodes). However, my explanation was based simply on the argument that you appeared to be using in order to justify a complete series runtime instead of episodic as specified by {{Infobox television}}. As for age, I watched the Apollo 11 moon landing live when I was nine, but if you want to be way older than me, that's fine. ;) As for the use of "TV serial", which is what this section is supposed to be discussing, I checked through all of the articles that were converted from Infobox television film to Infobox television, and there were less than 200 that used "(miniseries)". I couldn't find any using "(TV serial)". --AussieLegend () 08:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That just means that articles using the (serial) disambiguator did not use the Infobox television film template. Here is another number: In Category:2000 British television programme debuts through Category:2015 British television programme debuts there are 20 articles with the (miniseries) disambiguator and 26 articles with the (serial) disambiguator. (And an unknown number of articles for miniseries or serials that did not need a disambiguator in the article title.) –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The articles in those categories using (TV serial) either have no infobox or have used Infobox television for a long time. Some list an episode runtime in accordance with the instructions, while others incorrectly list an entire series runtime. Interesting, but at least we know that (TV serial) is actually used. --AussieLegend () 04:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

This page was moved without consensus[edit]

I have moved the article back until the discussion is finished MarnetteD|Talk 03:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll just reiterate that I support moving to And Then There Were None (miniseries) – airing on three successive nights is pretty much definitionally "miniseries" as opposed to "limited (TV) series". --IJBall (contribstalk) 05:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
When you can provide a WP:RS that this was labeled thus then that will support your assertion. MarnetteD|Talk 06:10, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Here you go: [1] Do you have a "reliable source" calling it a "TV series"? Dont panic.svg --IJBall (contribstalk) 07:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm confused. MarnetteD, are you arguing that this is not a miniseries/"TV serial"? --AussieLegend () 07:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
IJB the source you found proves my point as it only uses the term miniseries to refer to the US airing of the show. Now as it was a co-production with Lifetime that muddies things a bit WP:ENGVARwise. Whatever the final consensus is will be fine with me. AL as I noted below I think that {TV serial} should be the DAB. The only reason I moved it back to (TV series) was that this discussion had not finished when the move occurred. Again apologies to those of you who I have offended. You are all good editors with WikiP's best interest at heart. MarnetteD|Talk 23:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 February 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have a clear consensus for a move, and a rough consensus that "miniseries" is the best disambiguator per the relevant guidelines. The objections to the term based on MOS:TIES are mooted by the evidence presented that the even the UK sources use "miniseries" in discussing this topic, while few if any use the other suggested option, "serial". Cúchullain t/c 15:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)



And Then There Were None (TV series)And Then There Were None (miniseries) – Per WP:NCTV. This article is a textbook example of a miniseries, a show with a limited number of episodes. Plus the fact that it aired over three successive nights. Many examples of sources referring to the show as a miniseries: the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE, Variety, Deadline, etc. (and not as importantly, but also IMDB). Could not find references calling it a "serial," so I think that disambiguation would be inappropriate. Wikipedical (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose The term is incorrect for UK programmes. The DAb should be {TV serial} not miniseries. MarnetteD|Talk 23:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Here's a reference to "miniseries" from the BBC and from the Guardian. I cannot find any references to this project as a "serial." -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:NCTV allows "miniseries" and "serial". While I originally thought the common usage in British English would be "serial", apparently this is not the case for And Then There Were None, by Wikipedical's references, so let's call it (miniseries) here. Funnily, War and Peace, another recent BBC limited format with closed story (but on a weekly broadcast) is called "serial" by the BBC. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support – Absolutely: it meets the specific definitional criteria for a "miniseries" (e.g. airing on consecutive nights in the UK, rather weekly; in the U.S. it will explicitly air as a miniseries), and as shown there is plenty of reliable sourcing identifying it as a "miniseries". --IJBall (contribstalk) 13:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)#'
@IJBall: Please read MOS:TIES, and remember this is a British series. Theoosmond (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Remember it's a U.S.-UK co-production, and "miniseries" is not an unknown term in the UK. And we have all these reliable sources using the term... --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow – amazingly, all mention of this being a U.S.-UK coproduction is missing from the article. That info needs to be added in, STAT. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Where an earth does a source say it's a co-production? Theoosmond (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
It's in the infobox. It's co-produced by A&E Networks. That's American. Too few of the articles about these British-American co-productions note the American involvement. --Drmargi (talk) 11:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The three references that Wikipedical provides at the top all make it clear that it's a co-prodiction. It's actually a co-production between the BBC and Lifetime – it looks like A&E is simply handling the international distribution. (And, yes – I realize that Lifetime is part of A+E Networks, so that may be "a distinction without a difference"...) But sourcing makes it 100% clear that this is an British-American co-production, but the article was making zero mention of that, which is just wrong... --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
But since the British ties to the programme are stronger than the American ties, i.e. it's based on a British book, it's written by a Brit and filmed in England, the only American tie I see is the production companies, does that mean we should treat it as an article with British ties, as surely it has to be one or the other?Theoosmond (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Again, there is not one reliable source calling this a "serial." Please find a source if you can. I've found many calling it a miniseries, including the BBC and other British links. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

QUESTION[edit]

Hey, y'all -- a question. Did anyone see the 2015 TV adaption? (I'm in the US and I don't have cable, so .....) If so can somebody explain (please ping me) how "[Wargrave] fires the bullet just under his chin, and the revolver is propelled away from him by the force of its firing, landing at the empty place setting" and how he obscures his fingerprints while doing so. Just curious. Thanks. Quis separabit? 15:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)