Talk:Confederate (TV series)

Reactions and controversy

I converted name of Web site that is claimed to be a "department" within magazine (primary topic being arguably still print work even if all its content is has become available on-line) to a quasi-short work.

   It's hard to blame the offending colleague for distinguishing, only in that way, the name of the so-called department (indeed necessarily a proper noun) from other roles of proper nouns. Someone with sufficient interest should try to figure out where similar cases have previously been discussed, and upon being the first to do so, inform our colleagues who have a more intense interest than mine, by putting a link somewhere below in this talk-page section.
--Jerzy•t 12:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The reaction section is pointless. It needs to explain the nature of the criticism/backlash and the defense. 85.149.13.48 (talk) 13:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We need reliable sources to state this. It does not seem anyone has talked about this in-depth yet. Supergodzilla2090 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 13 May 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: Page not moved. There is no consensus for a page move on this request. Additionally, this is largely the wrong venue for this type of request. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane ^talk 19:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Confederate (TV series) → Draft:Confederate (TV series) – The production is still in development and has yet to be handed a series order from HBO. Seems a bit premature for an article in the mainspace. Until there is a series order announcement made I would suggest moving it to a draft. BoogerD (talk) 07:43, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Neutral - While our usual way of handling shows that haven't been picked up or haven't had firm airdates announced is to WP:DRAFTIFY, in this case, I think the reactions and press just based on the announcements have made it notable. In fact, it will likely be very notable if such reactions cause it to be cancelled/pulled even before people have had a chance to view it. -- Netoholic @ 09:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the reactions from the public and all of the press it has gotten make it noticeable however, they haven't really started writing the series as HBO has yet to give it a series order (let alone begun to cast anyone or film anything). At most, they are simply writing the pilot script. I wonder if the information in this article doesn't make more sense to be located on the pages of the series' creators (David Benioff & D. B. Weiss) for the time being? I think a WP:DRAFTIFY and a merge makes the most sense. Honestly, with Benioff and Weiss working on that Star Wars trilogy after Game of Thrones and Nichelle Tramble Spellman creating Are You Sleeping for Apple in addition to all the controversy it has created for HBO it seems likely that the series will ever move beyond development. – BoogerD (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose It has generated far more media attention than most pre-production TV series do because of its controversial subject matter. That makes it notable enough for its own article. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Seems notable based on several reliable sources. (And just as a matter of procedure, this really should have been taken to WP:AfD since it's basically a deletion request, not a move proposal.) Station1 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Articles moved to draft space are not deleted. I fail to see how this compares to a deletion request at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

It's comparable because drafts are not accessible in regular searches, so this information would no longer be accessible to the average Wikipedia reader. Also WP:DRAFTIFY describes this as an outcome following AfD and also lists a set of criteria for DRAFTIFY which this article does not appear to meet. DynaGirl (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion DynaGirl (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

drafts are not accessible in regular searches, so this information would no longer be accessible to the average Wikipedia reader - By that logic a car is comparable to a truck because they both have a steering wheel. Obviously they are not the same because similarities in one tiny aspect doesn't make them comparable. You could also argue that, unlike AfD where deletion of an article makes it unavailable to everyone except administrators, moving to draft space keeps the article available for all readers. These are clearly not comparable outcomes.

Also WP:DRAFTIFY describes this as an outcome following AfD - redirection is also a possible outcome of AfD so it would follow that redirection is the same as moving to draft space, which it clearly is not. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Over many years, I don't recall ever seeing a move proposal resulting in draftifying. If it's ever happened, it's extremely rare. And I'm surprised to see so many editors looking to deprive readers of information about a topic that's been the subject of articles in the New York Times, Newsweek, the Guardian and the Atlantic. Station1 (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support: This is a clear violation of WP:NFF which states, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date." Though this is a TV series, WP:NFF applies here well since filming hasn't begun. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Per Kailash29792; the consensus for WP:TV and WP:FILM is that articles should not exist until production starts, meaning that this should have been immediately moved to the draft space. The content can be included in the articles for the showrunners; the article clearly states that there it's even doubted that this series will be produced, further supporting the lack of requirement for an article. I have posted a notification of this discussion to WT:TV and WT:MOSTV. -- Alex^TW 09:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support – as per WP:TVSHOW. We don't have articles for unaired TV pilots-only in all but exceptional cases – if this is one of those cases it can be proven in Draftspace. Incidentally, this also applies to Pretty Little Liars: The Perfectionists which should also be moved to Draftspace for exactly the same reason... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Just a note that the difference with PLL: The Perfectionists is that they've shot the pilot, as opposed to Confederate, which hasn't even started production yet.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 02:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - coverage in reliable sources seems sufficient to meet GNG. Seems the extent of pre-production coverage due to the controversy makes this an exceptional case. I also agree with Station1 that this move request seems procedurally problematics because it appears comparable to a deletion request. DynaGirl (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Any why can the controversy not be included in the showrunner's article/s? Is the controversy the only thing that makes this article notable? -- Alex^TW 02:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The breadth and scope of the reliable source coverage is what makes the topic notable. A google news search of "HBO Confederate" shows abundant reliable source coverage of this show for a long period of time. While it's true that all notable topics don't require a stand alone article, it's also true that this is not a request to merge to another target article. It's a request to move it to draft, which does not seem appropriate given the topic meets WP:GNG. DynaGirl (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Add- I also think the content about the social media protests and various objections to the show made by notable commentators and activists would seem out of place in the biographies of the showrunners. DynaGirl (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Looking at the sources used in the article, most date back to last year and deal mainly with the announcement of the series. The one source from this year casts doubts that this will ever be produced so we should be treating this as an unproduced TV-pilot. I concur with the arguments provided by other supporters. Move it to draft space. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support – production hasn't started —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Even though the show has received significant attention due to the controversy, I would say move considering they're barely in pre-production and doubt has been cast on whether the show will even continue considering D&D are the writers/producers of some new Star Wars films.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 02:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suppose this TV show is cancelled tomorrow. Even if so, it seems like there is enough notable coverage to sustain an article; it'd fall into the realm of extreme development hell projects that still get discussed. Granted, we may have to make a spin-off of List of television series canceled before airing an episode for List of television series canceled before producing an episode, but there's a first time for everything. (And, obviously, if it does make it to production / airing, then it's an easy long-term keep.) SnowFire (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, because this meets WP:GNG. However, a different disambiguator could be helpful, given that this is not yet a "TV series." Perhaps Confederate (proposed TV series) would work. Dekimasuよ! 00:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The best "flavor" of that, IMO, would likely be Confederate (TV pilot), even if one is never actually filmed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. None of the sources discuss a TV "pilot" they detail an "series". Such a title would immediately fail WP:VERIFIABILITY. -- Netoholic @ 18:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not a series if there is only one episode, or if none are made. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

And yet the sources all call it that. Weird. -- Netoholic @ 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

It is weird. At best it's a proposed TV series regardless of what sources call it. We can't call it "TV series" if it doesn't become a series, "proposed TV series" is not in line with NCTV and you don't like "pilot" so what should we call it? --AussieLegend (✉) 19:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

(TV series) should be used for articles about aired, upcoming, and proposed TV series - because WP:VERIFIABILITY. Using (proposed TV series) is not WP:CONCISE, so should be reserved for situations where there is more than one TV series with that title. -- Netoholic @ 19:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No. "TV series" should not be used in situations like this, for all of the reasons AussieLegend outlines. "Series" in this context is referring to a "prospective" or "proposed" series, not an actual series, so "series" should not be used. In a case like this "TV pilot" is appropriate. Failing that "TV program" could be used. But it absolutely, positively is not a "TV series", and that term should not be used. At all. Not until multiple episodes are produced. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:46, 21 May 2018 (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.

AfD is definitely the correct place to do this, if one thinks the subject isn't currently notable, then that is clearly an AfD problem, and one can say there that one wants to keep it as a draft in-case it becomes more notable later. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 22 May 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: Speedy procedural close as an exact duplicate of the move request closed less than 12 hours ago. The appropriate forum to contest that close is Wikipedia:Move review. - Station1 (talk) 07:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Confederate (TV series) → Draft:Confederate (TV series) – No matter how notable or whatever happens, TV shows (either pilots or entire serieses) should not have mainspace articles until they have progressed into production. Anyone creating an article for such works is clearly violating WP:NFF and WP:TVSHOW. As of February this year, it looks unlikely that Confederate will ever enter production, therefore we shouldn't have an article for the series/pilot/whatever until it has been confirmed to have entered production. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:02, 22 May 2018 (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.

Title, part 2

Hopefully we don't need to go through a whole 'nother requested move on this. Since various editors have complained about the disambiguation suggesting the TV series was actually made, would there be any complaints if this was moved to Confederate (proposed TV series)? User:Erik suggested Development of Confederate, and User:clpo13 suggested Confederate TV series controversy, so those would work too. I suspect those two options might make the editors who most dislike any title that isn't abundantly clear it doesn't exist yet unhappy, but I'm not one of said editors, so would be willing to be proven otherwise. SnowFire (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Development of Confederate seems like a better idea, like Development of Gambit. But I'm not pleased with BoogerD's decision to open a move request, rather than move it straight to draftspace, since the article still violates WP:TVSHOW, no matter how notable. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This is about the article title, not about AfD part 2. SnowFire (talk) 14:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any particular problem with the current name, so I'd definitely object to a move. The sources describe it as a TV series, and its a TV series even if its just conceptual. Its a TV series that never got made. There are Category:Unpublished novels that just use (novel), Category:Unreleased albums that just use (album), tons of Category:Cancelled video games that just use (video game), Category:Cancelled films that use (film), etc. Of course, if there is a future naming conflict with another TV series of the same name, we'd use something like (cancelled TV series) or (upcoming TV series), depending on the circumstances, where we'd normally use the year or country. -- Netoholic @ 08:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no tangible topic to be had, and Wikipedia should not pretend that there is one. We cannot claim in any form that there is any aspect of a TV series produced. Unpublished novels and unreleased albums and cancelled films have actually had something done. That is not the case here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A show doesn't get to the point this got in development without tangible work being done. The show creators would have had to produce some amount of work to bring to the pitch meeting, including things like a season one overview, character roster, budget, pilot script, preliminary legal commitments, and more. It's just like an unreleased album which might have music and lyrics written, but nothing laid down firmly on tape. The tangibility of the TV series is evidenced in the existing sources. --Netoholic @ 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

"Forthcoming series", "next series", "the series will..." is all prospective – calling it a "series" before the fact, in these circumstances, violates WP:CRYSTAL: it's not actually a "series" until episodes get made. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is a problem with the current title – it plum isn't a "TV series", because no episodes were even produced, so the current disambiguation is wildly inaccurate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Netoholic that the current title seems fine and is supported by the reliable sources. If there is consensus to change the title Confederate (proposed TV series) would be adequate. I think Confederate TV series controversy is not ideal because even though the controversy garnered a lot of attention there are other notable aspect of Confederate like the discussed inspiration for the alternative history plot as well as the big industry names involved in the show's development. Development of Confederate is not an appropriate title imo because it does not properly disambiguate the topic. The reader wouldn't know if this was in reference to development for Confederate States Army or Confederate Ireland or Confederates (novel) etc.DynaGirl (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, Confederate (TV pilot) would be a better, more accurate title, and is supported by the fact that there are other articles dismbiguated that way – e.g. Aquaman (TV pilot). However, Development of Confederate is not a bad alt choice, though I'm not sure how intuitive it is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Aquaman (TV pilot) is an extraordinary case and arguable. A pilot episode for the Aquaman TV series was shot and was eventually released by itself to streaming services. This is arguable naming because that article covers the development of the series and also details about the pilot episode. In the Confederate case, there was no pilot episode shot and so we can't even argue for a (TV pilot) name. -- Netoholic @ 19:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Then Development of Confederate is the only viable option – Confederate (TV series) is inaccurate and unacceptable, and Confederate (proposed TV series) is not in any way WP:NCTV-compliant. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

(TV pilot) is not in any way WP:NCTV-compliant. (proposed TV series) could be, but only in the case of WP:NCTV#Additional disambiguation if there was another series named that. Development of Confederate is probably overthinking this all too much. That name implies that there is some sort of article series about the show that required a WP:CONSPLIT. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes with article naming, there are no "pretty" options. In this particular case, Development of Confederate is the least "bad" option – the other options are all far worse, or are not "complete" or are at best partially accurate (e.g. Confederate TV series controversy). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course, the other option is one of the one's suggested earlier – deleting this article, and merging its content to the article(s) on the showrunner(s). That might actually be the "least bad" option here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd support moving it to Development of Confederate. – BoogerD (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done I have moved the article to Development of Confederate. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the recent move. There are CLEARLY at least two editors voicing objections to that proposed title. This needs an WP:RM. -- Netoholic @ 22:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this needs a formal WP:RM (or an WP:AfD). But, that said, I suspect it is likely to end up at Development of Confederate when all is said an done... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

An AfD concluded yesterday with a consensus of keep [1]. An RfC where editors can vote between the existing title and all the proposed titles seems a good option.DynaGirl (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, too bad I didn't know about that – I would have !voted for "merge" I think... But we don't need a full RfC – a RM would be sufficient. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Considering there currently does not seem to be a clear local consensus among page watchers, seems an WP:RfC might be helpful.DynaGirl (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be down to the current title vs. Development of Confederate. The other options look to have been eliminated, or have been deemed inappropriate. Also, "multiple-option RfC's" usually seem to generate more heat than light – it's best to knock this down to about two options, and then hold a WP:RM... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion, I'd say it seems to be between current title, Development of Confederate, Confederate (proposed TV series) and Confederate (TV pilot). (Add-Perhaps you could argue eliminating Confederate (TV pilot) as one of the choices, if you no longer support it, but Confederate (proposed TV series) definitely seems in the running given this and earlier discussion). DynaGirl (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite what is said upthread, Confederate (TV pilot) is a legitimate option, as "TV pilot" is used as a disambiguator at multiple articles in WP:TV (and has withstood some RM on the question of its use) – that said, I share Netoholic's concern with it in that no "TV pilot" was ever filmed, so I would rule it out as an option in this particular case. As far as I am concerned, Confederate (proposed TV series) is a totally invalid title under WP:NCTV, and cannot be used as an option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:51, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but other editors have shown support for Confederate (proposed TV series), here and in AfD and earlier discussion. Similarly, as far as I'm concerned, Development of Confederate is a totally invalid tittle because it fails to provide disambiguation to the topic. That title could refer to development of Confederate States of America, development of Confederate Ireland etc, but I recognize that other editors have supported it so agree it should be among the multiple choices put up for vote. But it seems clear the current title and Confederate (proposed TV series) deserve consideration also. DynaGirl (talk) 00:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

And I'd strongly oppose that as an option – it's non-standard, and non-intuitive, disambiguation. Again, of the available options, Development of Confederate is the "least bad" option. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, then you could vote against that option, and state your rationale for voting against it. Similarly, I'd vote against Development of Confederate and give my rationale for my strong opposition. DynaGirl (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I had hoped that this would be a no-big-deal thing and not need another RM, but I guess we are fated to do another RM. Per above, I still prefer "proposed TV series" as simple & accurate (and, strictly speaking, NCTV is irrelevant here since, as discussed at the AFD, this topic isn't REALLY about a TV show; it's just about an incident / proposal covered in the media). Multiway RMs are sometimes trainwrecks, but would a "rank TV series, proposed TV series, and Development of" RM work? (I think that TV pilot is a non-starter with insufficient support to even clog up the works... it'll just lose.) SnowFire (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

So what is the next step? As of June 8, the project is still in limbo after Benioff and Weiss shifted their focus towards making new Star Wars films. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 19 July 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: No move. It's clear that consensus is against moving to the proposed title. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Confederate (TV series) → Development of Confederate (TV series) – Or just move it to anything else. This article was created in the mainspace, violating WP:TVSHOW since it never began shooting. Many editors opposed the article's deletion, citing WP:GNG. However, it is the controversy, not the series itself that gained notability (there's a reason why Murder of Jessica Lal and Killing of Cecil the lion are titled as such). As of July 17, the proposed series has been scrapped. Though I tried relentlessly to keep the article away from the mainspace while citing rational reasons such as policies, my efforts failed miserably and now I think this is better moved to mirror Development of Gambit. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - The topic is conceptually a television series, even if its not been filmed or aired yet. We don't name upcoming or canceled films the way you're proposing, so its inconsistent - we don't name upcoming or canceled books that way, we don't name upcoming albums that way. It violates the other four WP:CRITERIA of naturalness and recognizability (a potential reader might see that title and assume the article is different than it is), precision (because the article isn't only about development, but also the public reactions), and conciseness (being unnecessarily longer). -- Netoholic @ 09:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Per Netoholic and Per WP:Disambiguation which states the simplest title which properly disambiguates the topic should be used. And as the nominator for this move, User:Kailash29792 noted above with I tried relentlessly to keep the article away from the mainspace, this user has a history of disruption on this article, including moving article to draft immediately after a page move discussion closed with no consensus to move: [2], [3], [4], DynaGirl (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: DynaGirl, alright I admit it was unethical for me to move the mainspace article to the draftspace immediately after the move consensus ended against my favour. But both me and AlexTheWhovian earlier agreed that's what should have been, i.e. before BoogerD opened a fruitless move discussion, which was triumphed by many users citing WP:GNG. If every proposed TV series like this must have articles just for being announced without progressing to production, won't it lead to indiscriminate clutter? Of course, and regardless of their notability, TV serieses should not have articles unless they have entered production, regardless of whether they have an airdate or not. That's why the proposed Batwoman series (despite being super notable) will not have a mainspace article once the first season has commenced production. Why are you still voting to keep this article in the mainspace, when this source explicitly states, "once HBO cast Confederate aside, they decided to just integrate the show into the White House and save production costs"? Now I agree with you that "Development of Confederate (TV series)" isn't the right title for this. But Draft:Confederate (TV series) is. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Kailash29792, I'm confused. I hope you are not planning to move it to draft again, as that would seem really disruptive. Regarding the proposal to move it to Development of Confederate (TV series), to be honest, it's hard to take any move request which includes "Or just move it to anything else" serious. This doesn't seem to be about improving the article. These ongoing actions honestly seem more about killing the article than improving it. DynaGirl (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: Saying "the proposed series has been scrapped" is a horribly mangled point. For openers, the source cited for that is essentially a blog on a different topic which claims HBO "cast (it) aside" while linking to a better source which claims the series is "unlikely to happen": "Unlikely" =/= "won't". More to the point, whether or not it will/might/won't eventually see the light of day is moot. Yes, future shows are generally not notable. That said, any topic that receives substantial coverage in independent reliable sources (The Guardian, USA Today, Entertainment Weekly, Variety, The Atlantic, Salon) is notable. Your desire to "keep this out of mainspace" (or whatever) is irrelevant, other than to note that your desire seems to be getting in the way of hearing the established consensus. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. I strongly disagree with Netoholic on this – use of "TV series" is demonstrably inaccurate in this case, as no episodes were filmed, and this no "TV series" actually exists. However, I do support moving to Development of Confederate (without disambiguation) – the arguments that further disambiguation are needed in this case don't hold water with me, as they'd all naturally disambiguate themselves from this topic: e.g. "Development of the Confederate States of America", etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:39, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

IJBall, Confederate does not refer to one topic. Disambiguation for Confederate links to more than 30 different topics/pages. Click the link to see for yourself. Without "TV series" for disambiguation, the subject of the article would not be at all clear, so "Development of Confederate" isn't a viable title, because it does not make clear the usage of Confederate which is being "developed". DynaGirl (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

And that's your opinion – pretty much every one of those topics at the linked page may contain the word "confederate", but pretty much all of them would WP:NATURALDIS from each other if a "Development of Confederate [x]" article were ever created for them. This one would be fine at just Development of Confederate (which currently redirects to the article in question anyway...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:21, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the current title is also just inaccurate and wrong. As I said before, even Confederate (TV pilot) would be better than what we've currently got... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
    • That does lead me to an idea though – I'd take Development of Confederate television pilot as better than most of the other proposals... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't understand the double-standard. If, as you said above that TV series is inaccurate because "no episodes were filmed", then surely "TV pilot" is inaccurate also because we have no proof of a pilot script or episode being filmed. Even still, its weird to consider a pitched TV series as not a TV series by that standard. When an author gets an advance to write a book, they still refer to it as a "book", even though perhaps not a single word has been written or printed. If a pop singer tweets that they are working on a new song, we don't use some other word than "song" even if no lyrics have been written or tracks recorded. This is conceptually a TV series, and that is reflected by the reliable sources that don't call it a pilot or any other term than "series". The very first line establishes its status and I don't see how a reader would think it unusual at all to name it the way we already have, but all the alternatives are even more limited, inaccurate, or confusing. "Development of Confederate television pilot" in inaccurate because the topic is not just about the development of a pilot, but of a whole series. Reliable sources talk about the series, and the reaction to the series, not about just a pilot. -- Netoholic @ 04:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
        • No, bro – you develop the pilot first, then you develop the "TV series". That's how scripted TV shows are developed in the United States. This show never got to step #2. It barely got to step #1. No matter what – calling this in any way a "TV series" is flat out inaccurate and wrong. When the plug was pulled, it looks like they were in the early stages of developing the pilot. The TV series would have come later, but they got nowhere near that far. And, no – an author in that situation wouldn't be pitching "a book": they'd be pitching a manuscript. Manuscript is to book, as TV pilot is to TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
          • I continue to not see how adding an adjective to a noun makes the noun no longer applicable. If calling this a "TV series" is wrong, then explain why reliable sources do it? You can make the argument that the noun alone is incomplete/unclear, but can't say that the noun in question is "wrong". This is a series in concept form, I think you're taking it too literally. In fact, the very word "series" as a grouping term is conceptual - individual episodes air, but grouping them as a series requires a conceptual leap. -- Netoholic @ 11:03, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
            • If you look, sources actually call it things like a "planned TV series" or a "proposed TV series". That's not a TV series. As DynaGirl says below, "planned TV series" or "proposed TV series" would be appropriate (though totally non-standard) as a disambiguator. But "TV series" is not – it's calling it something it isn't. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Put another way "a planned TV series" doesn't make it a "TV series" anymore than "a planned book series" makes it a "book series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
          • But the simplest and most appropriate disambiguator in that case would be "book series" and if precision were required "proposed book series". Similarly, the simplest and most appropriate disambiguator here seems to be "TV series". If it is deemed important to make clear in title that it's proposed, then Confederate (proposed TV series) could be used. But I'm unconvinced this is necessary part of disambiguation at this point. "TV series" alone seems to sufficiently disambiguate the topic. DynaGirl (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
            • Only by doing so in a totally inaccurate way. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment: DynaGirl, I initially thought that if the article had to stay in the mainspace, it could be titled in a similar manner to Development of Gambit. Then you said it isn't, and I agreed since Confederate's development didn't progress so far. If there isn't any other suitable title for the article, it is best moved to the draftspace since a TV show (no matter how notable) should not be in the mainspace until it has entered production, even if it has been given a series order. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

So it sounds like you're saying this move request is another strategy to kill the article. Kailash29792, the results of recent request to move this article to draftspace was "Page not moved" [5] and the result of recent AfD was "keep" [6]. Please stop. Please respect consensus with respect to this article. DynaGirl (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

In a way, yes, because creating an article on an unpicked (in fact, merely proposed) TV program is a violation of WP:TVSHOW. The controversies towards Confederate are the only notable aspects of it, hence that seems better put in Benioff's page since he was one of the show's developers. But what started out as a simple move discussion trying to comply with Wiki's TV show policies has turned into a battlefield, hence I'm backing out of this move discussion. But I fear that if Confederate ends up existing in the mainspace when it may never come to fruition, it will lead to users creating more mainspace articles for TV shows that get press release just for being announced (without any airing dates, episodes or cast details), leading to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:CRYSTAL clutter. And DynaGirl, I'm sorry for all the trouble I caused. I do agree with your view that "Development of Confederate (TV series)" isn't an apt title. Maybe the proposed Mariyappan Thangavelu biopic could have a mainspace article because it was to be directed by the daughter of India's biggest superstar, and its poster was launched by another Indian icon. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Kailash2979, WP:TVSHOW does not say shows which haven't aired can *never* have an article. It says: Television pilots which have not been picked up to series are not normally eligible for Wikipedia articles — in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network. This is not most cases. This is clearly not a normal case. WP:TVSHOW makes allowances for unusual cases and I don't think unusual cases such as this will lead to an indiscriminate clutter, but every once in a while seems there will be cases where unaired or proposed TV series gets the sort of in depth significant coverage that clearly meets WP:GNG and the wording of WP:TVSHOW makes allowances for this. DynaGirl (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I definitely agree the article title should be moved, per WP:TVSHOW. The series never made it to air, let alone even filmed. Hence, I would support a move to something such as "Development of Confederate (TV series)" or the like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Note to closer - the above comment by Favre1fan93 was apparently canvased by Kailash29792, via this talk page request [7]. Kailash29792, please see WP:Canvassing, specifically inappropriate notifications/vote staking. DynaGirl (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment How about Confederate (proposed TV series)? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Either Development of Confederate (without disambiguation) or Development of Confederate (proposed TV series) would be better titles, but that proposal is less awful than leaving it where it is... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Unnecessarily long. We might use that if another TV series ever conflicts, though. -- Netoholic @ 08:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. This could really be moved to plain Confederate. There's no other article using that title. Right now it's just a little-used redirect.[8] We'd just have to put a hatnote pointing to the Confederacy dab page on this article. Station1 (talk) 03:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Again, I could live with that, as a better option than the article's current title (though I still think Development of Confederate is a more accurate title)... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose suggested title, admonish nominator for misrepresenting source that this show isn't happening (it's a blog article that references some problems, not anything even close to a confirmation from HBO), but no complaint about Confederate (proposed TV series). It's not just the "development" that matters, it's the TV show too if the show happens - and if the show doesn't happen, then "Development" is also wrong as it's misleading and suggests it finished developing at some point. So "Development of" is basically a terrible title no matter what, barring the hypothetical far future case of the show occurring and then splitting off the pre-launch controversy & making to a separate article. SnowFire (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The listing has elapsed and I briefly thought about closing it given the clear policy based opposition to the proposed title. In my view this is being made highly contentious when it ought not to be. The proposed title is completely contrary to normal practice and policy, and the other titles looked at as some kind of compromise are equally bad, there is nothing wrong with it's current location. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:55, 26 July 2018 (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.

Officially cancelled?

It is quite ambiguous, but it is officially no longer a HBO show. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)