Talk:Street Legal (Canadian TV series)

Canada: Toronto / Television Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian television.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Street Legal On Bravo!

For Canadian viewers, Street Legal is currently being syndicated on the Bravo! network channel.

Moggie

re: Street Legal on Bravo!

Great show; it's fun to see Eric Peterson play a lawyer. Tenspeeder 18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Much of the "Show history" section is copied from a piece by Janice Kaye on the Museum of Broadcast Communications website. 142.161.14.216 (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section tagged as such. Although one wonders if the Museum.TV piece was copied from here, since that OR tag has been there since 2009. At any rate, a re-write, ideally one with sources, is in order.Echoedmyron (talk) 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, a look at the page source on Museum.TV shows that the article there was posted in 2013, 4 years after much of the work was done on this wikipedia article. Thus, Museum.TV likely copied from here. I will remove the tag I placed, and add a sources needed tag.Echoedmyron (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All that means is that the particular html file was posted in 2013, which could simply reflect a redesign of the website. In fact the article dates back much earlier -- it's from the Broadcast Museum's Encyclopedia of Television, which was published (in print format) in 2004 (2nd edition). Here is an archive of the article from 2008, before the wikipedia page was even started. So no, the article was not copied from here. 142.161.14.216 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 October 2018

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: moved per the discussion below. (page mover nac) Flooded with them hundreds 10:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

– This page was stable at the proposed title for years, but was moved last year to be disambiguated by year of premiere, instead of country of origin, on the grounds that its disambiguator should parallel that of the New Zealand series. But as a rule, people are much more likely to know the country of origin of a television series than what year it premiered in. The other consideration is that the Canadian series is getting a revival this season, in the Will and Grace-Roseanne-Murphy Brown mode — which means the audience for this article is going to spike in the new year, and not all of that potential audience is going to comprise people who already know that the original series premiered in the 1980s rather than the 2000s. And all of those other revived series have their 2010s revivals addressed in the original articles, not as new standalone "Murphy Brown (2018 TV series)" articles, so the Street Legal revival should be handled the same way — but using the year of the original series premiere as the disambiguator here is going to make it more likely, not less, that somebody will think the 2019 revival needs its own separate article. I agree in principle that the series should be disambiguated in a parallel manner, rather than one being at country while the other is at year — but country is more appropriate here now that the Canadian show's year of premiere is a double-barrelled revival conflict. Bearcat (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Makes sense to me, to help delineate that these are two completely different series / franchises. Echoedmyron (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - both styles are supported by WP:NCTV but I agree that country of origin is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE. --Gonnym (talk) 17:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - considering that the 1987 series is "slated to return in rebooted form in the ~~March~~ Winter 2019", it makes better sense to either leave the by-year disambiguation for now, or at least to table this and revisit next year. by-year is a better default disambiguation when the franchises are unrelated, we use by-country more when the release timeframes are closer or when they are based on the same premise (ex. The Office UK vs U.S). -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Corrected release date as being Winter 2019. --Netoholic @ 19:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does it make more sense to leave the disambiguator at year, when (a) a huge proportion of Wikipedia's readership today comprises people who weren't born yet in 1987, and thus have no knowledge or memory of what year this show they've heard is coming back in a few months and want to read up about premiered in originally, and (b) since the operative inclusion test at WP:TVSHOW is that the show has been upfronted by its network and not that it has necessarily premiered yet, "Street Legal (2019 TV series)" is a title that we're already vulnerable to somebody mistakenly thinking we need to create as a separate standalone article? Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It doesn't. Netoholic has a very narrow view of when "by country" disambig. should be used that is frankly not shared by the rest of WP:NCTV – "by country" disambig. is widely used beyond just those situations when one nation's TV show is a direct adaptation of another country's (e.g. The Office or Big Brother), and that's as it should be. Pretty much everyone else in NCTV recognizes that "by country" disambiguation is preferable to "by year" disambiguation in any situation where it is possible to do that, on WP:RECOGNIZABILITY grounds, and it has nothing to do with TV show "adaptations". Now, that said, if Street Legal (2019 TV series) is created as a viable standalone article, then the other one will have to be moved back to Street Legal (1987 TV series). But IMO the New Zealand series should be at Street Legal (New Zealand TV series) regardless. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:27, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't strawman what you think my position is, nor try to suppress my view preemptively by trying to imply I am in some kind of minority. By-year is generally best used when the shows are separated in release date, but less well-suited when they are closer in time and can cause confusion (which coincidentally is usually the case when a franchise is adapted from one country to another). In this case, the difference in timeframe is wide (1987 vs. 2000/2019), so it seems a better use of by-year (status quo). Certainly, there are some people who support using either by-year or by-country as a default over the other, and many that are more fluid in-between the extremes, and that's why we have to discuss these situations one at a time like in this RM. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the difference in timeframe is vitiated by the fact that there's a 20-years-after-cancellation reboot happening to one of them. A series that simultaneously has two different premiere dates is not usefully dabbed by one of them, because that makes it literally inevitable that somebody will erroneously think the new reboot needs its own separate article at the new revival premiere date. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're WP:CRYSTALBALLing this situation - we don't know how the best way to organize this reboot will be since that won't be out for another year (winter 2019). A separate article may be exactly what is called for, in particular if the show takes off and goes multiple seasons and if someone decides to massively expand the current 1987 article to give more coverage to the earlier incarnation. Some simple preemptive redirects like at Street Legal (2019 TV series) would go a long way toward allaying your present concerns. We simply don't need to jump the gun on any of this. -- Netoholic @ 18:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winter 2019 is a matter of weeks away, not a year. And since the current iterations of Will & Grace and Murphy Brown are being handled as part of the original article, and Roseanne was handled as part of the original article until Ms. Barr's itchy Twitter finger transformed it into a differently-titled spinoff that didn't have her in it anymore instead of a straight revival, I can see no convincing reason why this would ever need to be handled differently than that. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm Canadian, I was alive when the first one aired and know it by name, and I certainly wouldn't know if the Canadian one was the 1987 or the 2000 one. But if I were looking it up, I would definitely know it wasn't the New Zealand one. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Some of y'all laughed at my contention that there was a risk of somebody trying to start a separate article about the revived serie, suggesting that wasn't a realistic worry. Welp, Draft:Street Legal (2019) has now happened. I'm rejecting it, both because of the established practice about handling revivals and because it's highly advertorialized, but I'll brook no more "that would never happen" dismissals since it has happened exactly as I predicted. Bearcat (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2018 (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.