Talk:Victoria (British TV series)/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Spoilers?
Am I right in thinking that the series 2 synopsis is absent because of issues relating to spoilers? I have a query to raise but wouldn't want to cross some boundary. - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- No, it's just that nobody has gotten around to adding any summaries. -- AlexTW 10:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I realise that the series is not a documentary but no way is the recent Paget-Drummond kiss factual. I don't know if it was added for dramatic licence or because of the current obsession with diversity but, whatever, it is not accurate. (I speak as one who, for example, has read the entirety of Victoria's original diaries or those of numerous other people from that period - my thesis was on Victoria and "the invention of tradition"). I think that when someone does get round to doing a synopsis for that episode, they're going to have to make that particular inaccuracy clear because otherwise it may well cause issues with the related biographical articles which we have for those two characters. Most inaccuracies are of no great note but this one, well, just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Victoria's diaries were heavily edited by her eldest daughter, according to the Queen. That may contribute to the gap you note. Far more likely, it might just be something they can deduce from the activity of the time and the papers of others. And then, as you say, it might just be a scene representative of the type of thing that went on a court behind the scenes, even though it was illegal. (I haven't seen the scene yet, so take that into account.) Victoria found male homosexuality repugnant, thus it was illegal, but didn't believe female homosexuality existed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, they run to many volumes but were indeed edited. No whips in the margins, as Gladstone's had. I was thinking "in the round", based on numerous other accounts also. Anyways, it doesn't matter in that sense now because I found a news source where Goodwin admitted to making it up. - Sitush (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Actually, the word she used was "creative". Just search for "paget drummond kiss creative" and you should get a lot of hits. Sorry if this is spoiling your enjoyment. - Sitush (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- No worries on the enjoyment. I'm more a Downton/Poldark girl, but do watch Victoria. I can see where she'd take liberties to portray the tenor of the times where homosexuality was concerned. Heaven knows the Victorians were all at it like rabbits with one another, just discretely. I'm sure the scene was representative of what went on in what passed for a gay community of the time. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 17:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Victoria's diaries were heavily edited by her eldest daughter, according to the Queen. That may contribute to the gap you note. Far more likely, it might just be something they can deduce from the activity of the time and the papers of others. And then, as you say, it might just be a scene representative of the type of thing that went on a court behind the scenes, even though it was illegal. (I haven't seen the scene yet, so take that into account.) Victoria found male homosexuality repugnant, thus it was illegal, but didn't believe female homosexuality existed. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I realise that the series is not a documentary but no way is the recent Paget-Drummond kiss factual. I don't know if it was added for dramatic licence or because of the current obsession with diversity but, whatever, it is not accurate. (I speak as one who, for example, has read the entirety of Victoria's original diaries or those of numerous other people from that period - my thesis was on Victoria and "the invention of tradition"). I think that when someone does get round to doing a synopsis for that episode, they're going to have to make that particular inaccuracy clear because otherwise it may well cause issues with the related biographical articles which we have for those two characters. Most inaccuracies are of no great note but this one, well, just a thought. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
@Sitush: It may interest you to know that summaries for Series 2 are no longer absent, I've added them for the eight episodes. (However, I do believe that a lot of wikilinking is required for the historical figures and events...) -- AlexTW 01:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I still think the "passionate" thing falls under the banner of fictionalised history that is discussed in a couple of other sections on this talk page. And the fact that dramatic license applies is clear from cited interviews etc with Goodwin. If this was a BLP, we would certainly mention it because it is not a trivial point. Indeed, Private Eye returned to the theme this week in reviewing the forthcoming Christmas special episode. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Series Overview
Does anyone else have an opinion on what the series overview should look like. The two preferred versions are below. (pinging @AlexTheWhovian:)
AlexTheWhovian's preferred (and article's current) version
|
|---|
TheDoctorWho's preferred version
|
|---|
Opinions, comments, or other versions are greatly appreciated. Thanks TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- See also, the primary discussion at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Victoria Series Overview. Cheers. -- AlexTW 06:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 5 January 2018 (withdrawn)
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: WITHDRAWN. --woodensuperman 15:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Victoria (TV series) → Victoria (UK TV series) – Dab from Victoria (2007 TV series) and Victoria (Mexican TV series), now the RFC regarding the use of "telenovela" has been closed with no consensus to allow this as a disambiguator. --woodensuperman 15:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to change any convention. You seem to have missed the part that said that
Future disputes must be settled through individual RM's until this RFC is overruled by a new one.
-- AlexTW 15:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) - That is what your closure meant, isn't it, Winged Blades of Godric? -- AlexTW 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to change the guideline, which currently does not allow for "telenovela". --woodensuperman 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- It does not disallow telenovela, it just does not include it. That does not mean that there is a ban on it. Individual RMs, please. -- AlexTW 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There has never been consensus to allow "telenovela" as a disambiguator, and there is no consensus for it now. --woodensuperman 15:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There has never been consensus not to allow "telenovela" as a disambiguator, hence they it has been acceptable as a disambiguator, hence your edits were bold and have been reverted. You need to file individual RMs now. Thank you -- AlexTW 15:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no mention of "telenovela" in the guideline, despite a failed RFC to allow it. Therefore, it is not acceptable. --woodensuperman 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I have had explained to myself by other editors as well, guidelines are not polices. They are not concrete, they are not rules, and not the be-all-end-all. They can be and are expected to be adapted. I'll say it again: the RFC was closed with a statement of
Future disputes must be settled through individual RM's until this RFC is overruled by a new one.
-- AlexTW 15:29, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I have had explained to myself by other editors as well, guidelines are not polices. They are not concrete, they are not rules, and not the be-all-end-all. They can be and are expected to be adapted. I'll say it again: the RFC was closed with a statement of
- There is no mention of "telenovela" in the guideline, despite a failed RFC to allow it. Therefore, it is not acceptable. --woodensuperman 15:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- It does not disallow telenovela, it just does not include it. That does not mean that there is a ban on it. Individual RMs, please. -- AlexTW 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There is no consensus to change the guideline, which currently does not allow for "telenovela". --woodensuperman 15:22, 5 January 2018 (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.
Requested move 5 January 2018
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: 
Done the first move request, 
Not done the rest as there was no consensus. (non-admin closure)) Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 18:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Victoria (TV series) → Victoria (UK TV series)
- Victoria (Mexican telenovela) → Victoria (Mexican TV series)
- Victoria (2007 telenovela) → Victoria (2007 TV series)
There was a recent RFC regarding whether "(telenovela)" would be allowable as a disambiguator. There was no consensus found for adding this to the guideline, therefore articles should be moved away from this disambiguator to bring them in line with the naming guideline WP:NCTV. It is therefore also necessary to move Victoria (TV series) per WP:INCDAB --woodensuperman 15:33, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Sigh. Let me repeat. As I have had explained to myself by other editors as well, guidelines are not polices. They are not solid. They are not concrete, they are not rules, and not the be-all-end-all. They can be and are expected to be adapted. Simply because it is not included in the guideline, does not mean it is barred. Example: MOS:TV describes splitting cast into Main, Recurring and Guest. Not Featured. And yet, this article includes Featured. -- AlexTW 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's no good reason not to follow the guideline though, so no reason to make an exception here. --woodensuperman 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not to follow the guideline through? It doesn't include telenovela. That does not mean that it's barred. Exceptions are made everywhere - that's how guidelines are created and updated. -- AlexTW 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- And there was no consensus found to amend the guideline to include telenovela... --woodensuperman 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- And there was no consensus found to amend the guideline to ban telenovela... Simply because it is not included, does not mean we cannot use it. See the example I gave you about Featured cast - it is identical to this. -- AlexTW 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- And there was no consensus found to amend the guideline to include telenovela... --woodensuperman 15:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Not to follow the guideline through? It doesn't include telenovela. That does not mean that it's barred. Exceptions are made everywhere - that's how guidelines are created and updated. -- AlexTW 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- There's no good reason not to follow the guideline though, so no reason to make an exception here. --woodensuperman 15:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support Even if of the other two series are telenovela's they're still tv series. Although if we're disambiguating the other two by country then instead of Victoria (2007 TV series) then it should be Victoria (U.S. TV series). TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support first UK is needed per NC. Neutral on second and third. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support first per In ictu oculi. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support first; neutral/oppose rest per Ictu. Paintspot Infez (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Support as proposed. -- Netoholic @ 10:29, 9 January 2018 (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.
Fictionalized history?
It would be useful to have a section on how the television series varies from historical accounts of the life of Victoria. —— Torontonian1 (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- Sure, if there's reliable sources to cover it. -- AlexTW 20:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
- I always read sections of articles like that with a "so-what" reaction. We know these are historical dramas that take liberties. That's nothing new. The problem is, these sections quickly become collections of crufty minutia. If there's something substantive and historically important (and sourced), I can see making note of it. Otherwise, it's not worth the bother. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
A more solid example occurs in Episode 13 -- Entente Cordiale. Victoria and Albert visit Louis Phillipe at Chateau d'Eu. On their return, we see their first son, Albert Edward, as a babe in arms. He was born 9 November 1841. The scenes in France are clearly in the summer season -- trees in leaf and so forth -- so it must have been in the summer of 1842. However V&A did not actually go to France until September 1843, when Albert Edward would have been almost two years old, long past being the babe in arms we saw at the end of the episode. See both Chateau d'Eu and Queen Victoria for dates of the trips to France. Note that it is also not clear that this was an issue in 1842/3 -- Affair of the Spanish Marriages says that at that time it was understood between France and Great Britain that Isabella would marry a Spaniard. . Jim . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Location or reference to where shooting took place
Can someone check to see how the location is verbally referenced or scene featured as to where the shooting takes place because the chamber if the "House of Commons" versus the building which i think is Westminster Palace or the Houses of parliament?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Hysterical, not historical
Clearly capitalizing on the success of overblown & farfetched Downton Abbey. A melodramatic, overwrought fantasy rather than anything remotely resembling a historical recreation. Albert's brother is shown as syphilis-riddled but amiable fella chasing an unhappily married lady, when in fact he was married at that time, and a father. Actual, historical persons are gay simply for the storyline, bite the bullet and propose marriage to an understanding maiden; naive little Victoria is presented as wanting to marry Melbourne, almost old enough to be her grandfather - it goes on. The producers blow their horn for the care taken with getting the historical correct - characters learnt to write with straight pen and ink, on "historically correct" paper etc. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should make a note of this in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.110.232 (talk)
- The genre clearly states drama, not historical drama. This is not a documentary, neither it wants to be one. I don't see any problems in the way that the article is written. A section for historical inaccuracies can be created at any times, providing the statements are sourced and sufficient in number to fill a section.--TheVampire (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM. -- /Alex/21 02:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Removing HUGE cast from template
This series has a huge cast, with many actors being seasonal characters or just featured. I propose that we cut down everyone except Jenna Coleman and Tom Hughes, who are the only two actors credited before the "VICTORIA" title in the opening. This was done with Outlander and House of Cards for similar reasons, as these kinds of cast include a lot of people.--TheVampire (talk) 14:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I could support the removal of featured cast, but there is no guideline- or policy-based reason to remove the rest. They are all starring characters. -- /Alex/21 14:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- To me, it seems quite logical that if a cast list is overly long, it can be shortened to the essential information. Otherwise, by the end of season 3, the template will be longer than the article. The rest of the cast are still listed in the appropriate section, they are not removed, and there is a link to that section in the template in my proposed edit. It's taken from the already mentioned TV series, where the stars of those shows are those who appear in every episode and are the protagonists (Balfe and Heughan in Outlander, Spacey, Wright and Kelly in House of Cards. In those cases, editors did not have to overly explain the reasons behind the choice as it's quite obvious in my opinion.--TheVampire (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Removing the featured cast would certainly reduce the length of the list. I very highly doubt that "the template will be longer than the article". Picking only specific cast based on their appearance and apparently protagonist-status starts getting into original research and synthesis, which is exactly why guidelines were created on how to list casts of series. -- /Alex/21 15:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- To me, it seems quite logical that if a cast list is overly long, it can be shortened to the essential information. Otherwise, by the end of season 3, the template will be longer than the article. The rest of the cast are still listed in the appropriate section, they are not removed, and there is a link to that section in the template in my proposed edit. It's taken from the already mentioned TV series, where the stars of those shows are those who appear in every episode and are the protagonists (Balfe and Heughan in Outlander, Spacey, Wright and Kelly in House of Cards. In those cases, editors did not have to overly explain the reasons behind the choice as it's quite obvious in my opinion.--TheVampire (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- I fully support trimming the cast list in the infobox! Frankly, a good case can be made to trimming it to just Coleman (as per the whole "just list who's featured on the 'poster'" precedents from MOS:FILM/she's the "titular" character of the show), or to just Coleman and Hughes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. I wouldn't go so far as to cut it to just Colman, but would include Hughes, and the few downstairs staff who have been long-running (Kingsley, etc.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)