Talk:True Detective

Requested move 9 May 2016

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. It's a close one. Opposers make a good argument that the magazine has long term significance, but there's just enough consensus from supporters that the TV series is overwhelmingly what is sought at this title, and hence it's primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

---

• True Detective (TV series) → True Detective
• True Detective → True Detective (disambiguation)

– The TV show is absolutely the primary topic. I'm actually doubtful the dab page is needed, because the essay isn't notable at all in comparison to the other two subjects. Unreal7 (talk) 12:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support the move. Seems really obvious. Though the DAB page should be kept as it meets the criteria with 3 entries meeting MOS:DAB. Nohomersryan (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support--Dixtosa (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd never heard of the TV series. The magazine is historic, and lends its name to the TV show. Secondarywaltz (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose fails second requirement to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, per previous RM, per WP:RECENT and per Google Books and per the fact that the TV series is named after the magazine. Speaking of the magazine, it isn't clear from page history how it got moved out of primary topic to make way for the dab, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True Detective agreed on keeping the dab. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. 97.9% of the page views shows that this is the topic readers are looking for. While it doesn't predominate in a Google Books search, it does on Google News ([1] vs. [2]) and the stats make it clear what readers are looking for when they search for "True Detective".--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I've stricken my support; I rewrote the magazine's article with two new sources and it looks like it has considerable long-term significance. I'm shifting to oppose, as the pageviews are overwhelming.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Eh, un-striking. The show also has long-term significance and is far and away what readers are looking for. In the current arrangement, we're sending virtually all our readers to dead end.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Not the primary topic when considered historically and long-term significance cannot be determined yet even though the older magazine has endured in memory due to its cover art and "true-crime" stories. (at least, that's how I heard of it and only know of the television series in passing) Opencooper (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per Secondarywaltz and IIO. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support due to OVERWHELMING gap in page views which supersedes the 'historical significance' criterion of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (note that the policy states that both criteria do not have to necessarily be met to establish a primary topic). Also, in this case, we have years of stats which we can use to reliably predict that this trend of the two articles' traffic will not change as time goes on (the recentism/historical argument). The traffic received by True Detective (magazine) is a trickle, at best, and there is no indication this will change. The TV series is a show that has recently aired and is boosted by that, yes. But for a couple of examples, compare to two past shows on the same network, Oz (TV series) and Six Feet Under (TV series). Despite their being off the air for over 10 years, and not having been as popular as True Detective to begin with, they still get over 40x as many daily page views as True Detective (magazine). I see several oppose arguments here that actually contradict the policy. 1) Both main criteria of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC do NOT have to be met (which of course is the case - if not, primary topics could never be established in favor of a newer entry until some amount of time had elapsed, which the policy might as well state explicitly) , 2) WP:BUTIDONTKNOWABOUTIT is not an argument for/against a primary topic candidate, and 3) 'who had the name first' is not an argument for/against a primary topic candidate. That is all right there in the policy. Please read the policy and apply it in a way which serves the user, which is what WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is all about. --SubSeven (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per SubSeven. Historical importance matters, yes, but it might yet be true that the TV show was more influential than the long-lived magazine. Longevity is not everything; a novel is only released once but can have huge long-term notability, more so than a magazine. Same with a TV Series. SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 10 May 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.

This looks like another page where Amakuru moved the article but not the talk page. They ought to be moved together, and that is the default action for a move. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@David Biddulph: apologies again. The problem is that if the target talk page has a nontrivial history (i.e. a non-administrator would not be able to move to that talk page location), then the talk page doesn't move with the article even if you tick the box to say move it. The target talk page has to be deleted first, and separately, just as an article would be. I'm quite new as an admin, and this problem never arose when I used to move pages in my non-admin days, because if the talk page can't be moved, then most likely the article can't be either. I will make sure to keep an eye on this more in future. I've now moved this talk page as required, anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Lovecraft eZine

This article has an entire section based on plagiarism accusations from Mike Davis from Lovecraft eZine. Given that it's a hugely successful television series, there will be a wide spread of opinions and criticism. Is Lovecraft eZine/Mike Davis really that central that it makes sense to have a section on plagiarism based on his reading of the series? This feels like a case of WP:UNDUE to me. /Julle (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I boldly removed this for now, since no one had replied so far. /Julle (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Related Articles: Charlie Work?

I already posted this on Talk:True_Detective_(season_4), but it's probably more appropriate here. Why is the episode "Charlie Work" from the series It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia listed as a related page at the bottom? What part of this is related to that episode (or IASIP in general)?

- Ambndms (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the article for "Charlie Work", the IASIP episode was inspired by the long take from "Who Goes There". I don't think that makes it's worth having in the TD template just for that reason. It would make more sense just to include that information in the article for "Who Goes There" instead. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

reception was polarizing?

We do not report on IMDB's user grading which has repeatedly been shown to be easily manipulatable by internet trolls. And the second source discusses the final episode not the season as a whole, and it STILL states "excited some fans while making others outraged" which is NOT the same as a mixed audience reception: that sentence could be true even if, for example, the number of outraged fans numbered in the thousands while the number of excited ones number in the millions (or vice versa).

Removing undue emphasis from lead, especially since this is the article of the show as a whole and not the article on the specific "divisive" episode. CapnZapp (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)