Talk:The White Queen (TV series): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:05, 28 August 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

BBC C‑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

C

This article has been rated as C-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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Television C‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summaries

The summaries are copypaste. There was a big argument over at Merlin TV series, series 4 which were mostly copypaste.REVUpminster (talk) 09:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well as far too large! I will see what I can do later this week. However if anyone else wants to have a stab before then go for it. I will leave them there for the meantime - so there is a nice base on where to start. I have removed future episode summaries in line with Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. -- MisterShiney ✉ 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the summaries for the first two episodes as well. They were also copied. Citing a reference doesn't excuse it. Ryan8374 (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could start individual articles if it's really that important. Also, there are individual descriptions of each character if needed. -- Lady Meg (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

An editor seems to feel that all positive material on this drama series should be removed completely. At least this editor is no longer blatantly falsifying sources, as in the case of the review whih praised the show for not indulging in a "feminist fantasy" of female power contrary to the realities of medieval life, which was misrepresented as criticism for somehow denigrating women by showing them as powerless. Instead the tactic now seems to be to simply cut out as much as possible, removing information that is useful for the reader, just in order to fulfil some strange personal vendetta against... a TV show. Can some explanation or justification be made of these edits? Paul B (talk) 20:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episode Title Data from BBC Progammes web site

Titles for past episodes are available on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp/episodes/guide

They appear as captions to the "Gallery" on the page for each individual episode.

Titles are currently available for episodes 1-7

Episode 1/10 "In Love with the King"
Episode 2/10 "The Price of Power"
Episode 3/10 "The Storm"
Episode 4/10 "The Bad Queen"
Episode 5/10 "The War at First Hand"
Episode 6/10 "Love and Marriage"
Episode 7/10 "Poison and Malmsey Wine"

Hicksw, grammarian
(I try to correct minor spelling and grammar problems, with little success.)
Last Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hicksw (talk • contribs) 10:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I have removed "pilot" from episode one, since it clearly is not a pilot episode in the usual meaning of that term. Paul B (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complete list (seen at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018sxqp/galleries ) is

Episode One: In Love with the King
Episode Two: The Price of Power
Episode Three: The Storm
Episode Four: The Bad Queen
Episode Five: War at First Hand
Episode Six: Love and Marriage
Episode Seven: Poison and Malmsey Wine
Episode Eight: The King is Dead
Episode Nine: The Princes in the Tower
Episode Ten: The Final Battle

Some of these were listed differently in the article, 6 & 8 were "Love and Death" and "Long Live the King" respectively. Maybe they were from Starz's version. Anyway, BBC was the premiere so should be definitive. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke

Rupert Young who plays William Herbert is in fact William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke who was created Earl of Pembroke in favour of Jasper Tudor and given control of Pembroke Castle and custody of the young Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond by King Edward IV. He was later executed by the Lancastrians by order of Lord Warwick "the Kingmaker" not his son William Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, I have tried to charge this but someone always undoes it. LordWiltshire1529 (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The series is so overflowing with obscure characters and barely audible dialogue that it might as well have been scripted in middle English. Leave well alone, it's complex enough for a British audience, let alone an American one.1812ahill (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Inaccuracies

The "Historical Inaccuracies" section of the article is entirely WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. I'd remove it but I'm sure this would be reverted. But as the referenced polices above state, "inaccuracies" cannot be noted by WP editors, they can only be cited if they have been pointed out by reliable sources. Proving errors by your own argument is synthesis. And in any case, listing "errors" of fact in a work of fiction is pretty silly. 202.81.243.196 (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's silly is your last sentence. It's not just fiction. It's historical fiction. One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons. It's also an issue in which many readers asre interested. As it happens I have long disagreed with the interpretation of OR that you present here. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is in any way OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original reasearch, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a new idea that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases. In this instance you might say that there are chains of reasoning that go beyond mere "fact", such as the deduction that it is supposed to be winter when the Battle of Bosworth takes place. Maybe, but it would certainly have been a very odd August. Of course the snow is obviously emblematic, like the eclipse (though that really happened), suggesting an ending and beginning. No doubt that's one reason why they changed the details. Another was probably because they could create the impression of a battle with about ten extras in a dense forest, but in a field it would just look silly. Now adding that would be OR. But undisputed historicval facts are not. Paul B (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:21, 28 August 2013 edit 202.81.243.196 (talk) →Historical Inaccuracies: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:05, 28 August 2013 edit undo Paul Barlow (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers 93,539 edits →Historical Inaccuracies Next edit →
Line 59:		Line 59:

	The "Historical Inaccuracies" section of the article is entirely [[WP:OR]] and/or [[WP:SYN]]. I'd remove it but I'm sure this would be reverted. But as the referenced polices above state, "inaccuracies" cannot be noted by WP editors, they can only be cited if they have been pointed out by [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]]. Proving errors by your own argument is [[WP:SYN\|synthesis]]. And in any case, listing "errors" of fact in a work of fiction is pretty silly. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.243.196\|202.81.243.196]] ([[User talk:202.81.243.196\|talk]]) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)		The "Historical Inaccuracies" section of the article is entirely [[WP:OR]] and/or [[WP:SYN]]. I'd remove it but I'm sure this would be reverted. But as the referenced polices above state, "inaccuracies" cannot be noted by WP editors, they can only be cited if they have been pointed out by [[WP:RS\|reliable sources]]. Proving errors by your own argument is [[WP:SYN\|synthesis]]. And in any case, listing "errors" of fact in a work of fiction is pretty silly. [[Special:Contributions/202.81.243.196\|202.81.243.196]] ([[User talk:202.81.243.196\|talk]]) 15:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

			:The only thing that's silly is your last sentence. It's not just fiction. It's historical fiction. One of the most interesting aspects of historical fiction is departure from fact for dramatic or other reasons. It's also an issue in which many readers asre interested. As it happens I have long disagreed with the interpretation of OR that you present here. If a film portrays, say, the Battle of Waterloo being fought in the same time as the Battle of Trafalgar, I cannot see how it is ''in any way'' OR to assert that this is inaccurate. If there is no ambiguity about what the film shows and there is no uncertainty about the historical facts, then there is no original reasearch, because no new idea is being "sythesised". It's not a ''new idea'' that the battles did not happen in the same year. Now, I accept that there are ambiguous cases. In this instance you might say that there are chains of reasoning that go beyond mere "fact", such as the deduction that it is supposed to be winter when the Battle of Bosworth takes place. Maybe, but it would certainly have been a very odd August. Of course the snow is obviously emblematic, like the eclipse (though that really happened), suggesting an ending and beginning. No doubt that's one reason why they changed the details. Another was probably because they could create the impression of a battle with about ten extras in a dense forest, but in a field it would just look silly. Now adding that ''would'' be OR. But undisputed historicval facts are not. [[User:Paul Barlow\|Paul B]] ([[User talk:Paul Barlow\|talk]]) 17:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)