Talk:The Americans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Promotional image

Does anyone think we need to keep the promotional image that I uploaded at the first of the year? I know that most main series articles usually get the intertitle from the opening credits once the show airs, but I think the promo image is also exemplary in its design and should be used in the article as well.

The problem: I usually put promo image thumbnails under the infobox in the edit screen, which places it below the IB on the main page. If we do this here, it will push the quotebox down and cause it to look awkwardly out of place. If we move the quotebox to the left of the Prod section, it will cause the section body to also look awkward from the images bookending it. For now, the promo image is below the quotebox so as not to impede with the section, but technically that also is improper formatting. I wish we could have a promo design section, but it would be difficult to track down the info for it.

If it's best to let the promo image get deleted for being an orphan, I understand, but like I said its design is unique and should be visible here. We have until February 9 to use it before deletion. Thanks for your time. — Wyliepedia 06:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I say keep it where it is. Plenty of pages use multiple images like this. As for its placement, you could always move or even remove the quote box if you think it interferes. The quote can simply be folded into the main body of text, or moved to the other side of the page or whatever you think is best. -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 06:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, SchrutedIt08! I moved the quoted text into the section and the page format looks better. That way, only a small part of another editor's hard work and research was harmed. Quoteboxes are sometimes just flashy fluff anyway, in my opinion. A bot has removed the promo's orphan-deletion tag, — Wyliepedia 07:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Cast Listing for Season 2

Based on the press release indicating three cast changes from recurring to main cast, the cast list has already been updated to its season 2 standing, far too early and in breach of WP:CRYSTAL, given that the show has not yet entered production for S2, and a lot can change. I have also removed in-universe descriptions of a couple characters. I understand the eagerness to update the cast list, but the standard practice on TV articles is to do so once the renewal was announced, but such changes can be discussed in the casting and/or production sections for now, then the cast list updated close to broadcast, which is probably six months or more away. Right now, any viewer of the series will see season 1, and the article should reflect that. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. --Drmargi (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Not moved. Two oppose votes, no supports other than the nom, and as User:In ictu oculi points out, WP:NCF proscribes using a partial dab in film or TV circles. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

---

The Americans (2013 TV series) → The Americans (TV series) – This article has been called The Americans (2013 TV series) because of the 1961 series. When you google 'The Americans', the 61' series doesn't show up. This is the primary topic. The other show has little information on its page and isn't a series that's remembered like others from that era. If someone were to be looking for a TV series called The Americans, it would be this one. I propose we move this article to The Americans (TV series) because this is the more noteworthy series. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NCF. Also, the primary topic of The Americans is The Americans (i.e. a dab page). If you're proposing WP:PRIMARYTVSERIES there is no such guideline. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose this is clearly not the primary topic of "The Americans", and the proposal as stated doesn't even involve the primary topic title of The Americans, so the contention of primarity doesn't even apply to the suggested title. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2013 (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.

Orphaned references in The Americans (2013 TV series)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of The Americans (2013 TV series)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "region 1":

• From 24 (TV series): "24 (2001)". TVShowsOnDVD. Retrieved July 22, 2011.
• From List of The Americans episodes: Lambert, David (December 4, 2013). "The Americans - Finalized Street Date, Extras, Packaging for 'The Complete 1st Season'". TVShowsOnDVD.com. Retrieved December 4, 2013.

Reference named "region 4":

• From List of The Americans episodes: "Americans, The: Season 1". EzyDVD. Retrieved December 11, 2013.
• From 24 (TV series): "24: Live Another Day". JB Hi-Fi. Retrieved September 14, 2014.

Reference named "region 2":

• From 24 (TV series): "24: Live Another Day Blu-ray". Blu-ray.com. Retrieved July 3, 2014.
• From List of The Americans episodes: "The Americans - Season 1 [DVD]". Amazon.co.uk. Retrieved July 12, 2013.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 06:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Revising the "Critical Reception" section

The paragraph on the critical reception for Season 3 reads much like Seasons 1 and 2: as if the Season has aired all or most of its episodes and they have all generally been well-received. The issue is that Season 3 has only aired one episode. While the public has liked it, I find this paragraph misleading, and suggest that we delete it. Any objections? - cxwong (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Why would we delete it? It's properly sourced, including reviews from television critics. Yes, only 1 episode has aired, but critics are given several episodes for review (I believe 4 in this instance), and the section can easily be expanded as the season continues with more reviews if necessary. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete, no. Reduce the hyperbole and peacock words? Yes. This section needs the POV removed and and the whole critical reception section needs to be revised. --Drmargi (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmargi, can you recommend another article that we can model this section against? --Cxwong (talk) 08:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Can anyone recommend another article we can model the Critical Reception after? --Cxwong (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to start making edits to this section. I'd much appreciate discussion here if any edits I make need to be changed rather than a blanket reversal. --Cxwong (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nicely done. I made one tiny fix, otherwise, it's much improved and comparable to the first two seasons' sections. --Drmargi (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you, Drmargi! --Cxwong (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to add some "standardization" to the "Critical Reception" section in an effort to be more objective. To that end, I propose and have edited to this format: (1) A summary statement expressing overall performance qualitatively followed by standard first sentence listing the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores that express performance quantitatively, (2) follow-up 'positive' reviews with some quotations, and (3) follow-up 'negative' reviews with some quotations (to the extent that there are any). Any existing reviews that seem to express similar sentiment (e.g., "best show in 2014") were grouped together under one sentence for conciseness. I'm open to suggestions, if any. --Cxwong (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

'See also' contents

I have reverted out the addition of the dramatic mini-series, The Assets as a connection to this series. While both series deal with spies and the Cold War, why not also add a host of other Cold War-oriented media as well? The difference? We can add see also topics based upon the subject matter, like (duh) the Cold War or Spies - general matters. However, to connect the two dramatic series, you need a reliable source that connects the two. Without that, we cannot list it, because it would be us (as editors) making that connection, and that is Synthesis. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian, what kind of connection must be made? Is it any kind? There are articles that compare the two, although the opinions of differences is primarily stated over quality. For example, please see this article by The Hollywood Reporter, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastard-machine/assets-is-not-americans-668315. Would this article be valid in supporting a connection between the two? --Cxwong (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The source you provided does indeed seem to discuss and compare the two. I think that if some comparison were to be made in the body of the article, then including it in the 'See also' section would not seem so disjointed/unconnected. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Dmargi, I'll leave it up to you if and how you want to add "The Assets" connection back in to the article. --Cxwong (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Title card

Why is the title card smaller in the infobox? It looks really retarded. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your default thumbnail size must be small, that's why (in your preferences). It always appeared as 250px on my end. So it was appearing as whatever thumbnail size you have have chosen because no size parameter was specified. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Did it ever happen ?

This is a very similar but real story, Russian spies getting undercover, posing as Belgians, get married there and have then 2 children... Maybe worth mentioning ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1810:4D45:D200:2CCE:3840:7957:5774 (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe this needs mentioning, since this is a fictional series. It is completely unrelated to the ideas behind the series and they have already listed what sparked the idea. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Official website

Only available in USA, so not much use to the rest of the world. Safebreaker (talk) 18:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Still "official," nonetheless. — Wyliepedia 00:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll second that. The definition of "official site" does not mean it is internationally available for all.MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs conversion to preferred reflist

List-defined references are now preferred due to its ease of use. I do conversions manually in smaller articles, but for larger ones there is a tool. Unfortunately, it's a script and that I cannot work with. I've no idea about scripting. More information can be found at Help:Converting between references formats. The tool is the References segregator. Does anyone, script savvy, wish to try a crack at it? MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 19:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless there's consensus to do so, I'm obliged to say I'm against it. I find this format quite cumbersome, and nor do I find it easier. With that way, if you want to add content and a reference, you have edit the entire article (not just a section) and then add the reference to the bottom of the article (which takes more time). You also have to worry about adding ref names to everything. It might make the edit window a bit more clean, but as long as references use appropriate white space I have no issue. List-defined references is not policy or a guideline, so it would need consensus to implement the change, because others may not want it that way; I know I don't. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Is that actually a decision you can make? It's the new way of doing it, despite whether you like it or not. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I was stating my opinion. From my experience of the 8 or so years I've been editing Wikipedia and of the 800+ articles on my watchlist, I would say less than 5 use that citation format. List-defined references is not policy or the only way to list references. WP:CITE (a guideline) states, "As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large-scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so", which is expanded upon in WP:CITEVAR. So, like I said before, unless there's a consensus to do so. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Redundant

"Despite its spy setting, Weisberg aimed to tell the story of a marriage.[4] The series focuses on the personal and professional lives of the Jennings, sometimes incorporating real-life events into the narrative. The show's creator has described the series as being ultimately about a marriage.[5] "The Americans is at its core a marriage story." That's redundantly and redundantly redundant. Suggest compressing that into one mention of "marriage", not three back-to-back, with a single set of citations.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What you say about Weisberg is true except for the fact that Weisberg isn't the only creator, he's only a co-creator alongside Joel Fields. Also, he isn't the ultimate decision maker. What he thinks does not always make a difference as evidenced by this article. That said, I agree with the redundancy. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Weisberg is the sole creator of the series per the credits. He is co-showrunner with Fields. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Cast and characters section violates guidelines.

According to the guidelines at WP:MOSTV it states "The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Please keep in mind that though "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits, guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order each episode they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. The cast listing should not contain an episode count, e.g. (# episodes), to indicate the number of episodes in which the actor/character appeared. If an actor misses an episode due to a real world occurrence, such as an injury that prevents them from appearing, this info can be noted in the character's description or "Production" section with a reliable source. New casting information for forthcoming recurring or guest characters should be added to the bottom of the list, with their position readjusted if necessary based the defined method above." This means that there should not be a list of Main characters and Recurring characters. For this reason I will work on that, as time permits and arrange them according to the current rules. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 23:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The cast and characters section is in line with the MOS, so I'm confused as what you think needs fixing. WP:TVCAST states, "It may be appropriate to split up the cast listing by "Main characters" and "Recurring characters". Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

How do we know 'Dylan Baker as William (season 4), a biochemical warfare scientist' is a main character rather than a recurring one? So far, he's had a short scene in S04E01, and a slightly longer one in S04E02. Lovingboth (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Because Dylan Baker is billed in the opening credits, and not credited as guest star. That's what determines main cast vs. recurring. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Gregory

There's a pretty major recurring character from the first year, Gregory, who isn't listed under Cast. Only 3 episodes, but nevertheless very prominent, and central to several subplots, including the main characters' relationship. Played by Derek Luke. He has a Wikipedia article too. 66.215.149.190 (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Reception

Who said that this article should be only about ratings from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? What about entries on Seasons 1 and 2, these entries have more than just percentage numbers. I don't mind having this info in the respective season articles, but I don't see why it cannot be presented here as well, I don't think it clutters the article. After all, the show garnered not only praise but critique. Also, the section in question that I added and that Drovethrughosts removed is not from some obscure critic, but directly from the horse's mouth about intentional choices made during shooting of the fifth season, it is as factual and objective as it can be.Mikus (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh, the powers that be just love RT and Metacritic. Never mind meta-analysis is garbage in/garbage out, and largely considered to be a highly flawed data analytic approach by anyone with even rudimentary statistical training. Sigh... Good luck with that. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Americans (2013 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150819214625/http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150318/gowanus/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-shooting-americans-new-york-city to http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20150318/gowanus/8-things-you-didnt-know-about-shooting-americans-new-york-city

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not "sleepers"

The Jennings were described in the article as sleeper agents. They are not, by definition: sleepers are inactive, waiting to be "woken up" to undertake covert activity. The Jennings are burnt out from running multiple simultaneous highly active operations. I've never heard the show's creators use the term in podcasts or interviews; or anyone call them that in the show. So I deleted that word. Making a lengthy explanation here for when someone reverts it thinking I'm a brainless vandal. 202.81.248.224 (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge and redirect of List of The Americans characters

In the coming days, I plan on merging some content from the article List of The Americans characters to expand the Cast and characters section in this article, and then redirect that article to here. The list of characters article is problematic: it's severely outdated, hasn't had any significant edits in almost two years and only contains plot information. It doesn't really need its own standalone article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Cast/character table

This discussion originally started on Drmargi's talk page, but as per her request, I transferred it here. I also restored a reply to the discussion that was deleted by her.

Hi, you recently reverted an edit I made to The Americans (2013 TV series) article, where I added a cast table. You said in the comment that "These only go in the cast/characters article", but in this case, there is no cast/characters article. Also, is there a specific policy that prohibits these tables from being in the TV shows main article? Right now, articles for popular shows like Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, 24, The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, Roseanne, and Married... with Children, to name a few, have similar tables in its main article. Thief12 (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thief12 Yes, you are right, and she is not. The relevant policy is set out in MOSTV, within which there is no such restriction on having a cast table, alongside a cast list, within a main series article. Indeed the best practice link within the MOS is to just such an article. There was no basis within policy, afaics, for your table to be reverted, given the number of characters and seasons of this series. Kind regards, MapReader (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

One you are reverted, the discussion belong on the show’s talk page. Please discuss there. What’s more, once you are reverted, the article stays at the stable version until consensus is reached. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

So first off, the example given in MOS:TVCAST of The Killing (U.S. TV series) does not have a main cast table followed by a main cast list, it has a main cast table followed by a recurring cast list. So yes, it is either/or: having a list and a table is redundant. Second off, the cast table should follow the order set out in MOS:TVCAST. And the standard for this article is to list actors as characters, not vice versa, as can be seen by the existing list and the recurring list. So if consensus is to add a table (which has yet to be established), it should follow the existing conventions and resemble what we have at this version.

And for the record, I oppose the replacement of the existing list with a cast table. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I concur. Replacement of the cast list, which has been part of the article since the show began, with a largely useless cast table that contains no information about the characters contributes nothing to the article, takes a lot of space, and removes important information. These tables have been controversial for some time because they are largely decorative and consist of little more than fancruft. Anyone with a personal agenda can go in and edit the MOS:TV article to suit what they want to do. There have been discussions on any number of talk pages regarding the pointlessness of these tables. Moreover, the main WP:MOS speaks to the use of tables as only appropriate when data cannot be presented in narrative form; clearly, the cast data is clear and easily read/understood in narrative form. The table adds nothing. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a strong view about the merits or otherwise of a main cast table in this article, but note that the edit that added one conforms with the MoS in all respects (although its ordering should be as Joey says). It was incorrect to revert with the false statement "these only go in cast/characters article", which as per the MoS applies to recurring cast tables only. It is also wrong to suggest that the table is an alternative to the list - there are plenty of articles as evidence to the contrary, and the MoS is clear that the purpose of the table is to illustrate main cast duration. So information about duration shouldn't be retained within a cast list, if there is a table, but otherwise there is no duplication and a list with other prose data about the characters can sit happily alongside the article. It is disappointing to see Drmargi compound her earlier mistake with vague references to unspecified other discussions and her attempt to dismiss the entire MoS with the statement "Anyone with a personal agenda can go in and edit the MOS:TV article" is not something we should be seeing from any experienced editor. Further, all the issues about cast data presentation in the MoS were worked over by a batch of editors just recently. It is up to editors to decide whether the table adds value, by illustrating character duration (in place of references to season appearance in brackets within the accompanying list); the requirements are simply that there must be at least three seasons, cast changes must not be "minimal", it should only include characters that have been 'main' for at least one season, and the table must not replicate one already in a 'list of' article. MapReader (talk) 07:12, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

First, the table is not meant to be a replacement of the existing cast list, but rather a visual aide to complement the information. That's why the existing cast list was never removed or replaced. Now, according to the guidelines in MOS:TVCAST, the table in question fulfills the appropriate criteria which are:

• Three seasons or more (the show had 6 seasons).
• Cast changes are minimal.
• It includes only cast members that were part of the main cast.
• There is no current article about casting/characters.

MOS:TVCAST never clearly states that there can't be a cast table AND cast list within the same section. I don't think it is an "either/or" situation and the MOS:TVCAST states that these tables serve as a "visual representation". The table in this case provides that visual aide while also abiding to the established MOS, as stated above. Thief12 (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I also have to oppose the table addition over removing/overriding the character description prose (see WP:WHENTABLE) with no separate character-list page. While I am one of those readers who hates navigating to a separate page, I also think they are necessary when a main page gets too large. The Americans isn't and won't be at this late stage. Create the separate list page first, then do the table here, since the former becomes seemingly unnecessary, but I foresee that not happening. — Wyliepedia @ 07:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Keidrich sellati

Could someone take it upon himself to create a wikipedia page for Keidrich? I believe he deserves one Rzg (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Unfortunately, per WP:NACTOR, he isn't notable enough in his young career to warrant an article. His IMDb filmography and awards are slight, compared to Holly Taylor's. The only online source about him is this Vulture article, which is mainly about his character. Hopefully, his presence in the series will kickstart his career and a notable article can be done. — Wyliepedia @ 07:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2019

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: moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria. WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT wouldn't work per WP:PRECISION. If the article enters into the predicted slow decline and later is no longer the primary topic, the articles can be rearranged then. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

---

• The Americans (2013 TV series) → The Americans
• The Americans → The Americans (disambiguation)

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Usage criteria by a huge margin based on page view counts[1]; all other uses of "The Americans" are totally obscure. You can see this in WP search box too if you type in "the americans" - you'll see this article about this series and its episode articles. And by long-term significance, critically acclaimed as one of the greatest TV series of all time, now six years old and still dominating page views, it "deserves" primary topic status. The very, very few users actually looking for one of the other uses of "The Americans" can get to the dab page via the hatnote link. And, no, anyone searching with "the americans" (plural and with the the) is very unlikely to be looking for American (singular with The), Americans (plural, without the The) or The American (singular with The), so those are not relevant here. Anyone going to the trouble of including the The and using the plural Americans in their search is almost certainly looking for this article. В²C ☎ 21:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - this is an encyclopedia not an entertainment blog. One could possibly argue for WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT if the objective is to help readers, but removing (2013 TV series) benefits no one. In ictu oculi (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How often does this argument work? One in ten attempts? It rests on essentially denying the point and existence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which, applying it in this case, benefits the vast majority searching with the term in question ("the americans"). It helps almost no one to send all of them to the dab page instead of to the article they are seeking. Anyway, the current title is also unnecessary disambiguation, contrary to WP:PRECISE ("define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that"), and the proposed title is clearly more WP:CONCISE. --В²C ☎ 21:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support. Concur with nom with regard to usage, though not quite on long-term significance; this is still a recent show while the much older photography book and radio commentary appear to have a certain amount of significance in their own right (at least, taking those articles at face value). That said, over the past four years the TV show has received around 94% of all pageviews, while the dab page has received more pageviews than the rest of these topics combined. This move has a clear and tangible benefit to our readers. PC78 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Have you watched it? This story line itself has important historical significance (cold war). It's as much art as TV/film can be. It's truly remarkable. --В²C ☎ 01:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The TV of course has high page views while it is currently airing - that does not prove that its a long-term primary topic. This phrase in particular seems like it has WP:NOPRIMARY because "The" is too small a difference from Americans. -- Netoholic @ 03:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Netoholic. Now the series is done, hits to the article will likely enter a long slow decline. The term is too close to generic for a TV article to claim as its own. MapReader (talk) 04:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Support It's currently primary with respect to usage and has been for a while. None of the entities at The Americans stand out as primary with respect to long-term significance. If, in 10 or 15 years, the 2013 TV series is no longer pulling in the majority of views, we can have another move discussion then. (Or maybe it'll stand the test of time as a TV classic, and we won't have to. WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that.) For now, seems like a pragmatic measure to help readers find what they're looking for. Colin M (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi, Netoholic and MapReader. The initial entry at The Americans disambiguation page is: "The Americans may refer to: Americans, citizens of the United States", in the same manner as typing "The English" takes users to the article English people, or typing "The Dutch" takes users to the article Dutch people. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The English and The Dutch are redirects becasue the terms are not ambiguous, and because there aren't notable TV shows with those titles... PC78 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    • In each instance, national identity still remains the primary meaning. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 15:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The "primary meaning" in what context? The relevant context here is people searching Wikipedia with the string "The Americans". To those people you think the primary meaning is national identity? Really? I just don't understand this propensity to interpret "primary meaning" and "primary topic" outside of the Wikipedia search context and then apply it in this context. --В²C ☎ 16:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
• Interesting suggestion. Before I can make a final decision either way, a couple of questions occur to me, and which might help to make this easier for other editors: Are there other series which don't have the "(YYYY TV series)" disambiguation in the title, yet have potentially ambiguous titles? The reason I'm asking is that I use WP a lot for reference on productions I'm watching, whether film or TV, and I'm used to searching for "The Americans (2103 TV series)" because that's the well-understood format that WP uses to differentiate TV series from other articles regarding "The Americans". I'm not sure that a page's individual popularity is sufficient reason to break with that convention. A second question would be, is it possible to derive from the pageview statistics how many users ended up having to follow the link from the "The Americans" disambiguation page to the series page? Because if they're accounting for a high number of hits on the disambiguation page, then it suggests the series page is really the target of 95% or more of the traffic using that search term, and that might weigh in favour of supporting the move. Cadar (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  Here are a few example PRIMARYTOPIC TV series articles, yet are potentially ambiguous:

  1. The Sopranos/Soprano
  2. Law & Order/Law and order
  3. The Good Wife/The Good Wife (disambiguation)
  4. The Good Fight/The good fight (disambiguation)
  5. Gunsmoke/Gun Smoke
  6. Bonanza/Bonanza (disambiguation)
  7. Columbo/Columbo (disambiguation)
  8. Kojak/Kojak (disambiguation)
  9. Alphas/Alpha/Alpha (disambiguation)
  10. The Bill/The Bill (band)/The Bill (Inside No. 9)

  I think ten is enough to establish substantial precedent for this practice. As to trying to account for the number that get to the article page via the dab page, I don't think that could be done but I also don't think it's relevant. I think it's safe to say that most arrive to WP articles via Google, usually directly to the page they seek without regard to whatever the title happens to be. PRIMARYTOPIC is a mechanism to make navigation more efficient for the minority that uses WP search - it is our job to make that work as well as practicable for as many as possible. That's the whole point of PRIMARYTOPIC, that unfortuantely seems to be often overlooked, I believe. --В²C ☎ 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support, then, although real or putative traffic via Google is outside of our remit and should in theory have no bearing on the subject. But I suspect, the majority of hits likely do come via search engines. I'm probably one of a fairly small number of users who have custom searches - such as one for Wikipedia - set up in my browser. Having said that, server administrators would be able to check the server logs to find out that kind of information, which would include logged search terms and traffic via search engines. It's not impossible to find out, it just needs somebody with the right level of access and perhaps some basic SQL or similar skills to get the raw statistics. Cadar (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My point though it is regardless of whether 90% or 10% are coming in via outside search engines - they are being taken care of by those search engines. Our focus should be on those who use the WP search, be it 10% or 90%, to ensure their experience is as good as we can make it. Recognizing primary topics and titling/placing our articles accordingly, as proposed here, is part of that. --В²C ☎ 21:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I do get your point, but that's not why I'm supporting the change. I have severe reservations about supporting it for that reason. If they do their searches off the site, then the name we give the article is irrelevant, and as previously stated, searches off site are outside of our remit. I think that using a standardised naming convention for ALL articles would be the way to go, and users can learn the standardisation; but since we don't have standardisation and there are no other really relevant searches for that specific string which get anything like the quantity of traffic, I'm supporting the change in this single instance. But I would not, under any circumstances, support the same change for all such articles.

Cadar (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The TV show is the primary topic for the term "The Americans." We need not disambiguate based on partial title matches. Calidum 23:06, 19 June 2019 (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.