Talk:Deadloch

Cast section

The Cast section currently contains 36 names. This is overkill. Per MOS:TVCAST, it needs to be pruned and split by Main and Recurring characters. The cast listing should "follow the notability guidelines" and "be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list". Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 11:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Accolades

Hi there! I am not sure how to update the award section from 'nominated' to 'won', the aactas held their industry award night Australian time today (8/2/24) and an article came out for who took home awards and Deadloch won 3 Industry Awards, that article is reliable on the if.com.au website, I did see that there was a post from aacta themselves but the post seemed to disappear on their X? Not sure if the post from aacta is up again lol. HungryReptile (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Non-English language source in Synopsis

Re these edits 1, 2 that added and re-added a French-language source:
(a) per MOS:PLOTSOURCE – "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with inline citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary."
(b) per WP:NONENG – "because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they are available and of equal quality and relevance."
Considering all the English-language review and analysis articles that can be found about this Australian series, it makes no sense to use non-English sources. Since WP:V is Wikipedia policy and WP:NONENG is a part of the policy: if this non-English language source remains, I "request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided". Threads on Talk pages can be archived, so the translated quotation needs to be a footnote that all readers and editors of the synopsis can immediately see and read. However, if this source does not match the text of the Synopsis, it cannot remain. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ 19:52, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Release Date

The official website (https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Deadloch/0T05WJG92911EXADKNJJM69PG0) shows clearly that it was released on March 19, 2026. But, before it was released, it was published to be released by March 20, 2026. So, I see an edit war coming. Can there be any consensus that because the official page says it was released on the 19th and it was, in fact, avialable to be watched on the 19th, that the actual release date was the 19th, not the 20th? ~2025-42594-02 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

All you have to do is find reliable sources that verify "March 19, 2026". Since S2 was just released a couple of days ago, there will soon be more sources about about it. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 13:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

The problem is the definition of "reliable resource." I would think that Amazon Prime is a reliable resource for a show produced by Amazon Studios. But the way Wikipeia works is if you disagree with something, you just say it isn't a "reliable resource." ~2026-17428-26 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It's an Amazon Prime Video series, so using Prime Video as a source is using a primary source. The article would still need a secondary reliable source. If you want to know what is meant by reliable sources, what are considered reliable sources and how they're used, read WP:RS. Sources that are considered generally unreliable, deprecated, and blacklisted are found here: WP:RSPLIST. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 08:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

But let's read about the problem with using a primary source. That's the policy described at Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary. First we have the footnote "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources", then a warning against interpretation. Then point 3 says A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts ... with an example about discographies. The there's a warning "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself".

Is it possible that none of these warnings apply to a date of release of a TV show, and concern that the source should be secondary is misplaced, since it's a straightforward, descriptive statement of fact which is not interpreted or analyzed or exceptional?  Card Zero  (talk) 12:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This is what I wrote: ...using Prime Video as a source is using a primary source. The article would still need a secondary reliable source. I didn't say that you couldn't use Prime Video as one of the sources -- but you also need to find a secondary source for the date. The two sources currently used are wrong about it. Now you need to search for a source that says the series premiered on March 19, and remove the sources that say March 20. This isn't the only television series article in Wikipedia that relied on sources announcing a premiere date that turned out to be different when the series was finally released. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 06:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

There's an archive of that page from March 8, which likewise says coming soon on March 19. So the date never changed.  Card Zero  (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Deadloch Season 2 premiered globally on Prime Video March 20 with the first two episodes.", How to watch ‘Deadloch’ Season 2, streaming now on Prime Video, Amazon News, Amazon, March 20, 2026. Pyxis Solitary (yak). ⚢ – not queer. 09:37, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I believe that the problem is that the world is always in more than one day at a single point in time. If the show released at midnight leading into March 20 in Australia, that would be 9am on March 19 in New York (if my calculation is correct). So, what day did it release? It depends on which patch of dirt you are standing on. I believe the solution is to make the statement more complete. It was released on March 20 in Australia. That was March 19 through much of the world. ~2026-16820-81 (talk) 11:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)