Talk:Ozark (TV series)

Requested move 5 February 2022

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

---

Ozark (TV series) → Ozark – Ozark (singular) currently is a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Ozarks (plural), about the region of the southern U.S., but the TV series is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, consistently getting several times as many page views as the region. There is not much historical significance claim by the region for the singular form, certainly not enough to overcome the huge page view disparity. Currently, anyone searching for the series with “Ozark” is initially taken to the region article, from where they need to notice and click on the hatnote to the dab page where they must hunt for the link to the series, and click on that, to finally get to the article about the series. There are a few other uses for the singular form, but they are dwarfed even more by the series in page views. As long as there is a hatnote link to the Ozarks dab page, which covers the singular uses as well as the plural ones, at the top of the series article, no one will be worse off than they are now. No one benefits from the current arrangement, except maybe the very rare user who searches for the region with singular Ozark. В²C ☎ 07:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose The geographic area is the primary topic. However, there should be a direct link to the TV show in the hatnote on Ozarks - I am adding one now. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 23:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • You are not addressing any of the argument I presented for why the series is the primary topic and are simply asserting, without basis, that the area is the primary topic. Okay. 🤷‍♂️ —В²C ☎ 06:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose the TV series is based on the place and the place has more long-term significance however as the TV series is likely primary by usage[[1]] a compromise would be to move Ozark (disambiguation) to the base name instead given there are other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Are the Ozarks ever referred to or, more importantly, ever sought, as singular “Ozark”? —-В²C ☎ 17:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support. The region is not referred to as Ozark -- it is always the Ozarks. Calidum 17:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • No, it's not always just referred to as "the Ozarks"; it's frequently called the Ozark Mountains or the Ozark Mountain Region [2][3]. That being so, it seems best for both the plural and singular forms to continue to point to the article on the region. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    • But the regional is not called Ozark. Calidum 16:19, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Sure, the Ozark Mountains or the Ozark Mountain Region. But the region, the topic of Ozarks, is never referred to as just Ozark. Similarly, Rocky is the article about the film, not a redirect to the Rocky Mountains (though Rockies redirects there, appropriately). Just as Rocky is not a common name (much less the most common name) for the Rockies, Ozark is not a common name for the Ozarks. Both singular forms are used most commonly to refer to the film and series respectively, and our title arrangement needs to reflect that for both. —В²C ☎ 16:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
      • "Never"? A few seconds on Google was sufficient to find Arkansas's own tourism website for the mountains which trumpets the full-page slogan, "Your Ozark adventure starts here". It seems clear that the singular form does indeed refer to the mountains, and clear too that it is indeed used as such (e.g.) That being the case, we're left with the question of whether a recent TV show better meets the criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC than the geographical region, and given the long-term significance criterion ("substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term") I just don't see that the case has been made. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
        • Yes, just like "Ozark Mountains", "Ozark Mountain Region", and "Ozark people", Ozark is used as a modifier-qualifier in "Ozark adventure", but never just "Ozark" to refer to the region. And the first hit for "Ozark adventure" says this: "Ozark Adventures has been serving outdoor enthusiasts in Springfield, Missouri and the greater Ozarks area since 1979." --В²C ☎ 02:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
          • Per primary topic guidelines: "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term."

            Is the geographic region in Arkansas and Missouri a topic associated with the term "Ozark"?

            Yes, clearly. Your examples demonstrate that, as do mine.

            We're therefor left with the question of whether the geographic region has greater enduring notability and educational value than other uses of the term, including the recent TV show — and I believe it does. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

            • That’s a better argument, but weak nevertheless. First, you’re addressing only historical significance. Second, with such a loose interpretation of “topic associated with that term”, which ignores whether the topic is commonly called just by that term, Rocky should redirect to Rockies. So the region topic has a tenuous primary redirect claim on “Ozark” based on an unusually broad interpretation of “associated with” per historical significance, while the series absolutely dominates for primary topic based on usage. I think it’s clear which way the scales are tipped. —В²C ☎ 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
              • It seems a stretch to suggest that the term "Ozark" is only tenuously associated with the region: the series is explicitly named after it, and the examples we both provided demonstrate that it's commonly used to refer to it. Still, if beyond just recentism you can make that the case that that's not so, then you're welcome to try.

                It's also good to remember that not every case is identical. The cornerstone of the mighty and long-lived Rocky franchise is certainly easier to support as a primary than a single TV series that's only existed for a few years. However, if Ozark can indeed "go the distance" (as Rocky said) and achieve similar stature and longevity, then it may indeed tip the scales and become a contender. :) ╠╣uw [talk] 16:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons explored above. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Disambiguate. When good editors suggest multiple primary topics, there usually isn't one. Pointing Ozark at either the series or the mountains will surprise significant numbers of readers. Make Ozark a dab. Certes (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, recognising that the helpful addition of the TV series to the hatnote on Ozarks by User:力 acknowledges its "Primary topic runner-up" status and makes it much easier for the reader to find the TV series than in the previous situation as described by the proposer. Arguments for "Ozark Mountains" etc are compelling, and regions are encyclopedically more significant than TV series. PamD 08:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The primary redirect should remain. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment from nom. To drive the inevitable stake even further into the heart of this proposal, I’ve discovered that the original title for the article at Ozarks was… Ozark. So the use of the singular form to refer to the region (not the mountains) is more common than I realized. —В²C ☎ 09:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
• Second comment while the region is Ozarks (or more often the Ozarks) and is generally always plural as a noun, the adjectival form is "Ozark" without the "S". Note also Ozark Air Lines. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:10, 12 February 2022 (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.

Expansion of accolades and split proposed

Hi, I suggested to expand the accolades for 2023 awards in Ozark: Season 4. I also wanted to split the accolades table. CastJared (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Update: Now split to a different page, due to undue weight. CastJared (talk) 07:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure WP:UNDUE has nothing to do with splitting articles. What you're looking for is WP:SPLIT and primarily has to do with the length of an article. I don't think the split was needed to be honest. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE doesn't seem relevant as the content still exists, just at a different article. The main article should have a paragraph summarising the accolades instead of just a main link, though probably better once expanded now. The formatting of the accolades is bad, they're split by season which can be WP:OR as some don't specify a season and released in multiple eligibility periods. Plus can be easier to read when award name is first, and not year. By length a split seems fine, especially after missing awards are added. Quick compare to IMDb (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5071412/awards) seems there's several recent awards missing. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)