This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Television Start‑class Low‑importance 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 Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. BBC Start‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Tasks for WikiProject BBC: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary) Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments) Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles Other : *Restructure the category Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments) Reassess BBC following improvements to article. Template:WikiProject British TV shows

The table width is currently set at 100%99% and this is normally perfectly OK. In this case, however, the info box on the right is in the way, so there is a huge gap between the section's title and the table itself. I suggest changing the table width to 65% or 75%. Doing so should eliminate the problem without changing any of the content. Anybody else feel differently? Thanks in advance - Marchjuly (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the table width to 70% which, in my opinion, looks much better. - Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in the table. The episodes section is just blank. 65.96.119.50 (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vikings (TV documentary series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418100604/http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500 to http://www.barb.co.uk/viewingsummary/weekreports.cfm?report=weeklyterrestrial&requesttimeout=500

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Vikings (TV series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings (TV documentary series) → Vikings (2012 TV series) – Per WP:NCTV and the consensus at a recent village pump discussion. There was some support for this in the above RM, from both User:Woodensuperman and User:Netoholic. This move was previously proposed in a combined RM alongside further disambiguation of Vikings (TV series) (which failed), but was never really discussed on its own merits. 67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC), edited 05:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. ToThAc (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose A fourth RM in a month for the same subject, with all the previous ones displaying a clear consensus for oppose. This is amazing. Title is fine as in. Guidelines are not policies. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Even if this was a policy, it's still not a hard and fast rule that has to be followed at all costs. We do ignore rules when it makes the encyclopaedia better for the readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Third, actually, for this subject, on the advice of not modifying the prior RM on this page. What, exactly, is your objection to renaming this article? Your only objection on either page was that the other series was primary, which has no bearing here. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support currently title does not fit with the WP:NCTV naming convention, yet there is a clear available alternative available as above. Prior falied RMs were a confusing mess of options, tied to other articles, or gave non-guideline suggestions... so its fine to do another that actually proposes something that fits NCTV. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As I've already said, NCTV is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule that we have to follow at all costs. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s not a reason not to follow it when editors think it makes sense to. WP:IAR isn’t a reason in and of itself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The thing you're ignoring is that multiple editors obviously don't think it makes sense to follow NCTV in this case. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I was referring to the comment you were replying to. I assumed you were as well. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this was widely rejected by the vast majority (8 out of 11) of participants at the previous RM and I don't see that anything has changed from that based on the comments made in the subsequent RM discussion. As I've stated previously, despite my support for WP:NCTV I have to point out that there are no hard and fast rules. Occasionally there are situations where common sense has to be applied as there are occasional exceptions (that's right there in the banner at the top of NCTV). In this case the present name seems far more logical than a name disambiguated by year. It's far less confusing for our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, this wasn’t discussed by the vast majority in the TV series RM. (Should we ping the others from there?) I respect your reasons for an exception to NCTV, but your opening sentence doesn’t seem accurate. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Why doesn't my opening sentence seem accurate? 8 out of 10 responders rejected the nominators proposal. That's a clear majority. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it implies that they specifically rejected this part of that proposal when the rationale had more to do with the other part. That’s the problem with coupling a controversial proposal with one that shouldn’t be. More accurate to say they rejected further dab of the other series. But we can ping them, if you want. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:ATDAB is a policy "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy.", WP:NCTV is the project guideline applying WP:ATDAB policy. But the problem here is not really this series, which is disambiguated but the other one which is currently flaunting the project's WP:ATDAB policy. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry let me restate that. This article is not in line with WP:NCTV true, but that is only a guideline as to how to apply the basic policy of WP:AT. The other article however is not in line with WP:AT (due to what looks like a combination of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and supervoting /non-admin close) and that is the one which needs fixing. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:NCTV. --woodensuperman 09:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose again Common sense should apply here to help the casual viewer looking for the documentary and not the fictional drama. If googling this series comes up 5th.REVUpminster (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a compelling reason to oppose. A lot of series exist with the same title, of various genres. This is what WP:HATNOTES are for. Article names just follow the WP:CRITERIA, which includes being WP:CONSISTENT. That's why we have topic naming conventions like WP:NCTV, under which this falls.. Frankly I'm ready to take this whole discussion to a wider forum because this opposition makes no sense. We could be debating what fitting disambig under the NCTV we should use... we should never be debating using something completely outside that unless there was literally no other option. -- Netoholic @ 12:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  So all viewers who uses Wikipedia should know all the rules. I don't think so. I don't know them and am certainly not going to read them.REVUpminster (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  An admission that you're not reading our guidelines? So then why are you participating in a discussion which hinges on those guidelines? This is all preposterous. -- Netoholic @ 15:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Because guidelines are not solid policies, and sometimes common sense should come into play before we use outdated recommendations (that's all a guideline is). -- Alex^TW 22:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AlexTheWhovian: If it’s outdated, we can simply update it. Go ahead and make a proposal at WT:NCTV, or try BRD or something. If the guideline is flawed, WP:FIXIT. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  "Outdated" is probably not the best word to use. The guideline doesn't need to be updated. Each guideline includes a prominent banner that says, in part, It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. That provides for situations such as this. However, that a lot of people don't bother reading that, or they don't understand it, and believe that policies and guidelines should be followed to the letter at all times, lest the world will end. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  That being the case, Vikings (documentary) should be equally acceptable. Yet you rejected that one without explaining why. Regardless, we can’t just ignore all rules when we feel like it; we need a compelling reason, and I don’t see anything unique to this case that wouldn’t equally apply to many TV/film articles disambiguated by year. What’s different here? Or should we look at revising NCTV to support dab by genre/style? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  you rejected that one without explaining why - I do wish that people supporting these proposals would start actually reading and trying to understand what people write. I said "Oppose per the previously cited RM". At that RM, which you must not have read, I said Despite my support for WP:NCTV I have to point out that there are no hard and fast rules. Occasionally there are situations where common sense has to be applied as there are occasional exceptions (that's right there in the banner at the top of NCTV). In this case the present names seem far more logical than names disambiguated by year. The present names still seem far more logical because "Vikings (TV documentary series)" is far more logical than "Vikings (documentary)". The present name makes it clear that this is a TV documentary series, not a film.

  What’s different here? - Please find another example of a documentary series and a TV series with the same name.

  should we look at revising NCTV to support dab by genre/style? - That's a question to be asked at NCTV, not here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If you're looking for another example, try Empire (2012 TV series), against all the other TV series with the same name. --woodensuperman 11:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Not a good example at all. There are several TV series so they would need disambiguation even if the documentary didn't exist. Here we are looking at one documentary series and one TV series. --AussieLegend (✉)

  No, we're looking at two TV series, one of which is a documentary. --woodensuperman 12:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Sematics. It doesn't change the fact that your example is not the same as the situation here. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  As it's the only documentary TV series among them, the same logic would apply. --woodensuperman 12:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No because, as I already said, there are several TV series so they would need disambiguation even if the documentary didn't exist. There is just one TV series here other than the documentary. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Empire (documentary TV series), Empire (historical drama series), Empire (sitcom), etc. Why this, and why not those? This is not a thing we do, even when it’s down to two. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend? What’s special about this case that we should do something we normally avoid? Besides ignoring the guideline simply because it’s JUSTAGUIDELINE and we can, why should we break with consistency for this particular pair of TV shows when we don’t do so for other pairs? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I have already explained, both here and at the other article, that it's not the best result for our readers. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend: In all honesty, I think that the type of TV series in the identifiers should only be used if years do not disambiguate well enough. From what I've personally seen, people do not think about what type of genre TV shows are, they usually like to think of it by year. Plus, both shows were released around the same regions (the 2012 series in Ireland and the 2013 series in the UK), and "it's not the best result for our readers" is just an empty, THEYDONTLIKEIT argument. ToThAc (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think most people think of a series by the year in which it was released because most people don't remember when a series was first released. I certainly don't think of the 1978 Battlestar Galactica and the 2004 Battlestar Galactica. I think of them as the original and the new versions. In this case I think of the TV series and the documentaries. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @AussieLegend: If you think we should generally discourage disambiguating by year when we can (which, in all honesty, seems reasonable to me for the reasons you gave), then post here: WT:NCTV and WT:NCF. Otherwise, still not clear on what’s exceptional about this case of two different genres of TV series released in different years across multiple regions, unless you think the guideline that covers exactly that case should be revised. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Given that one series, Vikings (TV series), is a series that has been running over at least 5 years, and could potentially run longer, and this series only lasted 3 episodes it seems useful to put the year in the title of this article to differentiate the series with the much longer longevity from this series. Given that the longer running series is a historical drama and this series is a documentary, it seems that adding documentary to the title of this article is not quite as strong of a differentiator as using longevity. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, that doesn't help our readers much. Presently, it's possible to google "Vikings documentary" and get a link straight to the documentary article. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You lost me. The second sentence is a non sequitur to the first sentence. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I figured out what you meant. You probably meant that the new proposed name does not help the reader much because of an anticipated Google search. I would counter that given that the other series is somewhat of a documentary, it is a historical drama, the person searching "Vikings documentary" may have been more interested in the other series. It's a little tough to anticipate what people will search on. As long as there are hat notes on the two articles with the {{distinguish}} template, it should be easy to navigate and find what the reader is looking for. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  A person searching for "Vikings documentary" would likely be specifically interested in the documentary and they would be pointed here. A link to the drama doesn't even appear in such a search so someone looking for the documentary wouldn't see this article if it moved. Therefore, moving the article doesn't help our readers and doesn't improve the encyclopaedia. It's not a good choice. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:02, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn’t a redirect serve the same function? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're going to provide a redirect then why bother moving the article? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  To fit with the way WIkipedia articles are titled. Because we don’t use disambiguators like “TV documentary series.” Whether we should is a question for WT:NCTV, but at present we simply don’t. But in case you’re not aware, a page move automatically creates a redirect. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as standard operating procedure and per WP:NCTV and WP:CONCISE. PS: The fact that this page has been RMed several times recently without a consensus emerging isn't a rationale to oppose; it's proof we need to resolve this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Kinda neutral, but Oppose THIS MOVE per AlexTheWhovian, AussieLegend, REVU, and others above. Support move to "Vikings (documentary series)" per WP:CONCISE. Can we at least briefly consider that version? Like, no one says "TV documentary series", and not a single other Wikipedia page title does either. "Documentary series" is the most widely recognizable title for this page (heck, I remember this series coming out, and I (like most) wouldn't have been able to guess correctly whether this thing came out in 2012 or 2013). In the words of 67.14.236.50 above, "To fit with the way Wikipedia articles are titled. Because we don’t use disambiguators like “TV documentary series.” Whether we should is a question for WT:NCTV, but at present we simply don't." Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support shortening from the current disambiguator, per my 13 January RM. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a terrible idea, as it puts it even more at odds with the naming guideline. --woodensuperman 13:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Woodensuperman: I respectfully disagree. As the only documentary (of any format) by that name on Wikipedia, and as a series widely known to be a documentary, a disambiguator even of just (documentary) satisfies all of the naming criteria except for consistency (edit: especially now that the other Vikings is disambiguated by year), being more concise and natural than the current dab but equally recognizable. But I suppose it depends on the value one places on consistency (which is the purpose of the NC pages). Including “series” does add a bit of precision at the cost of conciseness, so that’s debatable; I’d vastly prefer the more concise dab, which is precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Vikings (documentary series)" - Much clearer and more recognizable than "Vikings (2012 TV series)", which would be confused with Vikings (TV series), which was released one year later. This reminds me of COPS (animated TV series) and Cops (TV series) (well, not that I'm using the other stuff exists argumenting, mind you). George Ho (talk) 07:50, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to "Vikings (documentary series)", per Paintspot and George Ho, and which seems to me to be the most accurate descriptor. "TV" is not needed, as 'series' implies television. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For whatever it’s worth, the article for the TV drama has been moved to Vikings (2013 TV series) per WP:INCDAB. The primary proposal here would mirror it. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we retain “documentary” in the dab here, I propose renaming the other article with some permutation of “TV drama series” to match. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please do not propose yet another move. The other article has now been renamed in line with our naming conventions, and this is where it should stay. This article also needs to be moved in line with those naming conventions, this whole situation proves exactly why we have them. --woodensuperman 10:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if it’s decided that this article should for some reason be an exception to our usual naming conventions, disambiguated by genre rather than year, then so should the other one. I agree with you that using the year would be best, but if one of these two titles can’t be made consistent with the rest of the project, they should at least be made consistent with each other. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is more important that they should be consistent with the naming guideline. We should not be making an exception for either page, but if this one is inexplicably left where it is, that is no reason to move the other article away from the naming guideline. The only solution is to move this article to the one proposed. --woodensuperman 13:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't agree with the closer's comments at the other RM but I agree with Woodensuperman here, in that another RM for the other article would be inappropriate. Now that it's where it is, just leave it there. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's also inappropriate to modify the nomination after so many people have replied to the original nomination.[1] --AussieLegend (✉) 12:56, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • I merely gave new invformation supporting my original rationale, a village pump consensus clearly opposing the use of disambiguators such as “documentary.” If you missed it, the underlined text (default styling for <ins>) clearly marks the edit, and the additional timestamp dates it. If the new information changes your opinion, feel free to amend your vote; otherwise, the existing replies stand with no contextual change. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]