Talk:Texas Rising

US-UK Co-Production

ITV Studio's America is a British production company owned entirely by ITV which has studios all over the world, one of which is in the US called 'ITV Studio's America' funded entirely by British media network ITV. Texas Rising is equally funded by ITV and A+E Studio's. Someone deleted the citations for that fact stating that because the British company owns an American arm the production should be described as 'American' even though the British company co-financed the show, if that is the case then Game of Thrones which was filmed in the UK by a UK arm of an American company is 'British' which it isn't. Clearly, this editor doesn't quite understand that a company that finances a show is owner, or in the case of co-productions, co-owned making the country of origin for Texas Rising the USA and UK. Twobells^t@lk 13:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here we go again. Funding doesn't enter into country of origin, as was discussed at length with at least two other productions where you've tried this on. Texas Rising was produced by Thinkfactory Media, and American company located in California for the History Channel, an American network. "From" A+E Studios and ITV America indicates they are distributors, and both are self-described global media distributors. The criteria for country of original in WP:MOSTV clearly states that the location of the production company indicates country of origin. Thinkfactory Media is located on Santa Monica Blvd. in Los Angeles. This is an American production with some involvement by a British company. That's all. Go look at how any number of British productions co-produced by Masterpiece for PBS, notably Downton Abbey, are handled. Downton goes so far as to list Rebecca Eaton as an executive producer and credits the show as a ITV/Masterpiece co-production, Masterpiece and Eaton's roles are larger and more direct than any identifiable participation by ITV America, yet no one disputes Downton is a British production for purposes of country of origin. Trying to spin secondary involvement by the American arm of a British production company into Britain as the country of origin just won't fly. --Drmargi (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

With respect, when you say 'here we go again' why did you came onto this article having not contributed nothing to it and seemingly just deleted my work with no discussion? (editors please refer to talk history chronology) Setting aside good faith for one moment, to a neutral observer it could suggest that you are monitoring my contributions with some sort of npov agenda. Moving on, on Wikipedia, international co-productions list the countries of origin who finance the show. In the case of Texas Rising ITV is both co-funder and worldwide distributor, regarding your comment 'just secondary involvement', that is completely and utterly incorrect, ITV are joint funder. In closing, international co-productions do not have a mash-up in the lede rather they are listed in the info-box, also, you have completely ignored my premise regarding Game of Thrones, as for Downton Abbey that is financed in totality by ITV unlike Texas Rising which is a international, joint-funded co-production. Please refer to the many wikipedia international tv co-production articles to get a feel for how they are listed. Best wishes .Twobells^t@lk 09:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the funder doesn't determine country of origin. The production company does. Moreover, you're assuming the funding structure. Downton does apply; it is partially funded by PBS. Rebecca Eaton, the American EP, discusses at length how that came about and works in her 2013 book. Regardless, status quo is that the show is American. You must refrain from reverting until you gain consensus for the change. So far, that hasn't happened. Please review the WP:MOSTV for guidelines on country of origin. It's been pointed out elsewhere, as noted above, tha funding does not determine country of origin. --Drmargi (talk) 13:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Reviews

Why are there separate sections for the reviews from different sites? And they are also really lengthy.--Babar Suhail (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I did not write those huge reviews. I do, however, agree, they are quite lengthy. You might want to try to revamp the section. I did write the small section of metacrtic and rotten tomatoes which was rather short and to the point. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was the editor that added them and wanted to put in the critiques but also did not want to make it one sided so put in parts where the reviewer complimented aspects of the series and searched for reviews that were more complimentary. I am not against thinning them down or combining them. I would like to see comments about historical accuracy maintained as this series takes place on History channel. --Wowaconia (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Given the concerns of other editors and the size of the task, it would seem to be incumbent on you to take the comments into consideration and make the (significant) edits yourself. --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)