Talk:Les Misérables (British TV series)

Article title instability

@Woodensuperman: @AlexTheWhovian: @AgWoolridge: @Bennv3771: There have been numerous moves of this page title, maybe not quite like watching table tennis, but is there a consensus for a stable title, or is there a move war that needs to be resolved? Dl2000 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Dl2000, cheers for the ping. The year of 2018 is correct, as it is set to premiere on 30 December 2018. As for (TV series) or (miniseries), that does seem to be the contentious issue. Per WP:NCTV, For the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", when disambiguation is required, use: (miniseries) or (serial) according to common usage in reliable sources. Example: Taken (miniseries). Per the most recent move by Woodensuperman, nothing is mentioned in the Naming Convention about being "bone fide", or being "more akin to a film split in to parts"; this appears to be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If reliable sources state that this is a miniseries, then that is the term that should be used. -- Alex^TW 01:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", merely a normal weekly TV series of fixed length. And 6 episodes is a normal length for a UK TV series, so nothing "mini" about it. Limited series and event series are not this "special case", and are not miniseries. Series such as It (miniseries) and Salem's Lot (1979 miniseries) are bona fide miniseries. This is not the case here. We did have a discussion about this... --woodensuperman 08:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, here are a load of sources which do not mention miniseries: [1][2][3][4][5][6] --woodensuperman 08:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Woodensuperman, this appears to be your personal definition on what a miniseries is; none of that is included in the naming convention, so you cannot quote is as essay, guideline or policy. There is nothing to quote about what makes a miniseries a "bona fide miniseries". If it can be sourced as a miniseries, it should be listed as such, as that is what it becomes defined as, and reliable sources trump personal views. To counteract, here is an twice the number of sources which do mention miniseries: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18] -- Alex^TW 13:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Well obviously you were going to try to find as many sources as you can, that's not the point. This isn't a miniseries by its definition. But whether it is or it isn't a miniseries, is also irrelevant, as "(2018 TV series)" aptly covers both possibilities, by being WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRECISE, WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT. --woodensuperman 13:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Woodensuperman, as did you, so if that is not the point, then your sources aren't the point either. However, in this case, they are: a dozen reliable sources backup the claim that this production is a miniseries. What you mean is that this isn't a miniseries by your definition. A miniseries is a television program that tells a story in a predetermined, limited number of episodes. That's just Wikipedia; going to Merriam-Webster, a miniseries is a television production of a story presented in sequential episodes. The title does not need to cover both cases, as WP:NCTV states that the disambiguator of "miniseries" is completely acceptable. Stating a bunch of links without quoting any part of them does not further support your argument. -- Alex^TW 13:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

And this is the whole problem with using miniseries as a disambiguator, as pointed out in that earlier discussion. It has an open-ended meaning and is open to interpretation. So we can dispute whether or not it qualifies as a miniseries, but what is not disputed is whether it is a TV series or not. As this is most definitely a TV series, then this is a sufficient and the most appropriate disambiguation term to use here. --woodensuperman 13:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not open to interpretation. If it states something, then we use that. There doesn't seem to be a dispute - there seems to be one editor opposing it, based on their own personal definition, while more than one editor has moved it to the miniseries disambiguator. (And if there is a debate going on, then it needs to remain at the status quo until a consensus is formed to change it.) If the term has an open-ended meaning and is open to interpretation, then I do not believe that It or Salem's Lot are miniseries either, and they should be moved immediately. As this has been proved by reliable sources to most definitely a miniseries, then this is a sufficient and the most appropriate disambiguation term to use here. -- Alex^TW 13:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources can conflict. What one reliable source calls a miniseries, another may have a different idea. It has not been "proved" to be a miniseries by any stretch. If you do not believe that It or Salem's Lot are miniseries either then maybe we should try to restart the discussion deprecating the use of the term at WP:NCTV. --woodensuperman 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)[19] The status quo is "TV series", it was moved away from this just a few days ago. --woodensuperman 14:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

And when there's more sources that state for over against (over double, since The Sun fails Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources), then it's clear where the consensus lies in the sources. I do not believe that the term should be deprecated at all, and should be used where applicable; for example, here. And as for the status quo: miniseries is the original disambiguator, before you moved it away from the original title. Therefore, it should be moved back to its original title, and you should file an RM if you disagree with it. -- Alex^TW 14:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that the article's creator moved it to a "TV series" disambiguator here, so we'll leave it here unless you want to start an RM. --woodensuperman 14:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That was simply changing the disambiguating year, not the disambiguating format, and is therefore irrelevant. The original title used "miniseries", and hence that is the title it should remain at, as you are the only editor in disagreement against using "miniseries". I note that you said it should stay here unless an RM is started; so, to clarify, that means that you are happy to move it back if an RM is started? -- Alex^TW 14:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

That move is a tacit acceptance from article creator that "TV series" is acceptable, and it has been at "TV series" for 8 months. Article should stay here unless you start an RM and there is consensus that it should be moved. Only then should it be moved. --woodensuperman 14:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Dl2000, we seem to be conflicting on what should occur from this point onwards. Thoughts? -- Alex^TW 14:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking back at the earlier discussion, I think IJBall summed up the problem regarding sources best with this edit. --woodensuperman 14:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I have posted to WT:TV, WT:MOSTV, WT:NCTV, WT:BBC, WP:BTV and WP:BTVS for a wider view of opinions. -- Alex^TW 14:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You should have just started an RM. --woodensuperman 14:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you oppose the idea of other editors coming in to give their views? Why? -- Alex^TW 14:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No, other editors usually give their views during an RM, which is the correct procedure for this situation. --woodensuperman 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Both discussions and RMs are acceptable means to come to a consensus. -- Alex^TW 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Here's an idea: everybody stop moving the dang article, and hold a proper WP:RM on it. Clearly, this falls under "controversial". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It should have remained at the original title so that a move war did not occur between one editor and disagreeing editors. -- Alex^TW 14:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The article title had been stable for 8 months until a few days ago. It's currently at the stable title now, and an RM is required to move away from a stable title. --woodensuperman 14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Stable title does not mean status quo. -- Alex^TW 14:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Close enough. --woodensuperman 14:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This falls under WP:THEWRONGVERSION. Who cares?! (as per WP:NODEADLINE). Just hold the RM and both of you can make your cases. Anyone else who's interested will offer up their opinions. What's important is that the article end up at the "best" title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input - there seems to be consensus that this should be titled a 2018 series, but still controversy over whether it should be titled as a miniseries or regular series, therefore invoking a proper RM'... Dl2000 (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever happened to that serviceable - and accurate- term Serial? O Murr (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant Serial (radio and television). O Murr (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Other possibilities: Serialization - Serial adaptation - Serial drama. All TV versions of Les Miserables have not been in serial form. O Murr (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Les Misérables (2018 TV series). Why are we tying ourselves in knots when "(TV series)" is a perfectly good disambiguator for any multi-episode programme? "Miniseries" means different things to different people in any case. To me, it means a very short series divided into two or three episodes, four at the most. To other people it means something different. And the modern American usage is rarely used in the UK. I doubt whether most British people would call it a miniseries; they'd just call it a series. "TV series" is unambiguous and a perfectly good disambiguator. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Necrothesp, yes, a duplicate of your response here. Per below, the article has already gone through a Requested Move, and a firm and clear consensus resulted. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  You seem to be suggesting that I am not allowed to post a viewpoint and/or not allowed to post it in more than one place. Strange. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  I also wonder how many of those contributing to the RM below were non-Britons asserting their understanding of what a miniseries is in an RM about a British series. I also reiterate, I see no point in having different disambiguators for things that are essentially the same. How is this valuable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

  Are you saying that only British editors are allowed to title an edit this article? Because you are certainly insinuating so. I also wonder how much you are asserting your personal belief of what a miniseries is. Oh, and you are allowed to post your view point, but that's nothing more than WP:DEADHORSE. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (non-admin closure) JC7V (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Les Misérables (2018 TV series) → Les Misérables (2018 miniseries) – This was the original title (with valid spelling), but regular talk page discussion revealed controversy for the title. Dl2000 (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Variety calls it a "miniseries", the other sources at the article do not. To answer this will require looking at more sources – if I have time, I'll look for others (but I may not have time...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support to return article to stable (status quo ante) title under which this article was initially created and based on a very large number of sources given in the above section which demote "miniseries". Its a shame this became such a battle so soon before its due to air, when we can expect a lot more reviews and sources with which to help make this determination. Very high likelihood we'll be right back here in 2 months, and so restoration of a stable title with at least some strong backing currently is how to handle this. The presence of (miniseries) within NCTV is not something to debate here... only whether, under the present guideline, this article's sources predominantly describe it as such. -- Netoholic @ 05:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Netoholic. Sometimes a miniseries is just a miniseries. Randy Kryn (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support per above supports and my arguments in the section above. The disambiguator can and should be changed to (2018 TV series) if and only if either the miniseries is renewed for a second season, hence becoming no longer a miniseries, or if the naming convention changes, after a consensus is formed at the correct venue (which is not here). As it stands, the naming convention supports the use of (miniseries). That is, if an "official" definition is applied to a "miniseries" that is not defined by a singular editor's view on what a miniseries composes. A dozen sources, if not more, confirm the format of a miniseries, as listed above; they are repeated below, with the quotes copied directly from them for support:

[20] ‘Les Misérables’: The Weinstein Co Out Of BBC Event Miniseries

[21] The literary classic will head to TV with a six-part mini-series from the Weinstein Company and BBC, the companies announced Thursday.

[22] David Oyelowo, Dominic West, Lily Collins to Star in BBC’s ‘Les Misérables’ Miniseries

[23] The BBC Assembles Impressive Cast For Les Miserables Miniseries

[24] Olivia Colman becomes the Mistress of the House in the first look at the BBC's upcoming Les Misérables miniseries.

[25] BBC Ditches Weinstein Co. From Upcoming 'Les Miserables' Miniseries

[26] Six-part ‘Les Misérables’ miniseries in development at BBC

[27] ‘Les Misérables’ Becoming TV Miniseries, Thanks To Weinstein Co. & BBC

[28] Les Miserables Miniseries to Star Dominic West, David Oyelowo & More

[29] Lily Collins will star as Fantine and David Oyelowo will play Javert in the new mini-series on PBS.

[30] The first trailer for the upcoming, non-musical miniseries Les Miserables was posted on YouTube on Sunday.

[31] The BBC and PBS would like to cordially present the trailer for their Les Misérables miniseries

-- Alex^TW 07:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support It is absolutely the definition of a miniseries. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. This isn't the special case of episodic television known as "miniseries", merely a normal weekly TV series of fixed length. And 6 episodes is a normal length for a UK TV series, so nothing "mini" about it. Limited series and event series are not this "special case", and are not miniseries. Series such as It (miniseries) and Salem's Lot (1979 miniseries) are bona fide miniseries. This is not the case here. We did have a discussion about this... But, even if it were, we don't generally use "miniseries" for UK programmes. The majority of the sources are from US publications, where "miniseries" is a lot more prevalent. UK sources[32][33][34][35][36] generally are not using "miniseries". The fact is, the current title meets all of our naming WP:CRITERIA. Whether or not it is a miniseries is debatable, but it is undoubtedly a TV series. --woodensuperman 09:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  Nothing in NCTV says anything about not using miniseries for UK programmes, nor does it state the defined length for a miniseries, nor does it state "bona fide miniseries". Those are all personal preferences. It doesn't need to be "special"; Merriam-Webster, miniseries, a television production of a story presented in sequential episodes. Anyways, I'm not having the same discussion twice in two sections on the same talk page, not going down that rabbit hole (again). -- Alex^TW 13:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it did. Seems there was a recent change which doesn't really appear to have had full consensus here, also considering comments by SMcCandlish regarding disambiguators not needing to explain what type of programme it is, just good enough to disambiguate, which is also pertinent to this move discussion. --woodensuperman 14:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

But if that language wasn't changed then Telenovela would have to replace 'TV series' on the articles that you argued needed to be retitled, since telenovela is the terminology used in the formats home countries. You want to have your cake and eat it too (which makes sense, but you know what I mean). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the use of "telenovela" was deprecated, the same should happen to "miniseries". --woodensuperman 14:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Not the place to discuss the deprecation of "miniseries", take it elsewhere. -- Alex^TW 14:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We did, and there was decent support for deprecation. Didn't amount to anything though. --woodensuperman 14:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Then take it elsewhere again. As I said: this is not the place to discuss the deprecation the term. This is the place to discuss the use of the term for this particular series. -- Alex^TW 14:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Did. Nothing as it currently stands. However, as I said, I'm not having the same discussion twice; only time will tell if there is support or not for the requested move. -- Alex^TW 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It is no longer defining that an audiovisual production first aired on TV. Increasingly, people are not watching TV, but are streaming to hand held devices. "2018 miniseries" is already an excellent disambiguator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Musical songs

@Drmargi: I'll start a discussion here for you, and hope you respond. [37] No source that viewers thought that? It most certainly was sourced, with the edit right before yours [38], and per WP:CITELEAD, sources aren't needed in the lead if they're already in the body of the article; nevertheless, I have moved the sources to the lead for you. The removal was a WP:BOLD edit that was reverted. Per WP:BRD, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started, so that you can gain a WP:CONSENSUS is to keep it. The lead has been rewritten, so that the songs are not related to the book. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The content has been removed by two editors, is utterly unnecessary and does not belong in the lede, as the musical has no relationship to this production. This production is an adaptation of the original novel. The original statement about the songs was picked up or less word-for-word from Radio Times or some such media when the article was developed, and no one has bothered to remove it until now. The feeble claim that viewers expected the songs after the fact doesn't do anything to justify inclusion of the statement, particularly in the lede. I know you get attached to these little bits of minutia (remembering the nonsense about Jenna Colman's departure from DW) that have nothing to do with what's being discussed, but there is no direct connection between the musical and this production, and no need to mention it, particularly in the lede. The revised statement is particularly silly; if you feel a burning need to include it, put it in the critical response section, where such things go. Oh, wait. It's already there, making the trivia in the lede redundant. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for actually responding (despite continuing the edit war too). Two editors is not a consensus; the content has been included in the article since it was created. Viewers have already commented on the lack of music, and hence it is most relevant to the series. The content is actually from the ScreenRant article, which states There have been numerous takes on Hugo’s 1862 novel [...] most famous of them being the stage musical and the Hollywood film based on it. The source then goes on to talk about the 2012 musical, and then states It remains to be seen how modern audiences will take to a Les Miserables adaptation that doesn’t feature those iconic songs that appeared in both the stage show and the major motion picture that cashed in on its success. The source most definitely related this miniseries to the musicals that came before it. Everything in the lead is already in the article: the fact that it's called Les Misérables, that it's adapted by Andrew Davies and directed by Tom Shankland, who it stars, who distributes it, the number of episodes, it's premiere date. Why is this specific sentence difference? It's not. Reception has almost always been included in the lead, and its related content (i.e. the reception of not including music). -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Episode divisions

Are there multiple versions of this series, with differences in how it is divided up into episodes? Watching it on Masterpiece in the U.S., I find that this article correctly described the episodes until July 2021. After that, Jabberjaw rearranged the article with edit summaries such as "just watched and episode cutoffs are different." Has Jabberjaw simply made a mistake? Or are they thinking of a different version of the series?

Jabberjaw did also make some good edits to the plot summaries. I'll keep those, but I am restoring the former division into episodes to what it was before his edits, which reflects what I am seeing on the program. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 07:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up. I watched the show online here in Japan and a new show was released online every week (without indication of how long the series ran)… but it didn’t stop at 6 (and kept going up to 8). So until 5 or so I was editing in good faith… Maybe the different serialisations should be mentioned somewhere? Thanks JabberJaw (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Jabberjaw: I thought that might be the case. I noticed that your episode divisions would make sense if you were watching 8 episodes of 45 minutes apiece, rather than 6 episodes of 1 hour apiece, except that you then did not divide out episodes 7 and 8.

It seems to me that, since the episode table lists the premier date and the original number of viewers, we should stick with the original 6 episodes. However, if you can cite a source documenting that it was divided into 8 episodes for broadcast in Japan, then by all means add it to the article. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)