Talk:The Crown (TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Prince Philip not Phillip.

I have corrected Phillip to Philip as the prince uses the correct spelling and not the version with no etymological justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.28.227 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy description

@Drmargi, Rusted AutoParts, and AlexTheWhovian: Re: including "American politician" for Hall's descriptions. I had readded this small bit due to the following: in Deadline's source it says at the end of the third paragraph, "The second season bears witness to the end of the age of deference, and ushers in the revolutionary era of the 1960s. Enter the Kennedys." We also know the season will cover 1956-1963. Given this date range and the wording from Deadline at the end there, it could be possible we see the Kennedys before he becomes US president in 1961. Hence he would still be just a politician. That was my original reasoning. However, looking back over it, it seems probable that we will see them only once they have become President and First Lady, but that is my conjecture, so I don't see the harm in keeping "American politician" until we know more of how exactly they are appearing. Though if the Queen only interacted with the Kennedys once they were in the White House, then I'd say we probably could lose the extra description. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond ridiculous. Both sources explicitly state PRESIDENT John F. Kennedy and FIRST LADY Jacqueline Kennedy will figure in one or more episodes. Not Senator and Mrs. Kennedy, which is how they would have been addressed prior to the 1960 election, or President-elect and Mrs. Kennedy, or even presidential candidate and Mrs. Kennedy. The use of the title President locates their appearance within the period when JFK was president, during which time he made two visits to the UK: one in 1961 to meet the Queen and one in 1963, following his legendary trip to Ireland, to meet privately with Macmillian, whose prime ministry is the focus of the season. Even retrospectively, it would not be appropriate to refer to JFK as President Kennedy when discussing the period of time prior the first day of his presidency. It is particularly inappropriate to refer to him with the vague "politician". He had two roles during that period: As a U.S. Senator, and as President. Absent support for any other title, we must go with what the sources say: PRESIDENT John F. Kennedy, per wp:VERIFIABLE. The vague quote cited is far from an adequate reason to ignore what is fully and multiply sourced. --Drmargi (talk) 02:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and while we're at it, the burden is on you, Favre1fan93, to build consensus to include your edit, which was first removed several days ago, and is not supported by sources. They're on my side. --Drmargi (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, it's still on you. Three editors reverted you. You may be correct but after three editors revert the edit, you discuss it. Rusted AutoParts 02:42, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

And since you won't acknowledge it on your talk page, I'll put it here: please re-read WP:CIVIL. I don't appreciate you calling me a "hypocrite". Rusted AutoParts 02:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the full history of the edit. (And if the shoe fits...) --Drmargi (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Done so. You kept reverting, even after you were asked to go to the talk page. Rusted AutoParts 02:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you even read my response, especially at the end Drmargi? I was in essence agreeing with you. But we still don't know exactly when the two will show up in season 2. Yes we could not include the added "American politician" but there is no harm in having it until the exact episodes are known or the year in which they will appear in the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm for anything consensus generates. It's more than likely we see him during his presidency, but the timeframe the season will be covering offers the possibility of seeing him prior to his presidency. The thing I want is for the consensus to be developed, and the matter discussed. Drmagi, you were reverted by three editors, myself included. At that point you discuss the matter, regardless if you may be right, it warrants discussing. Rusted AutoParts 06:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

It's more than likely we see him during his presidency, but the timeframe the season will be covering offers the possibility of seeing him prior to his presidency. That is exactly what I was trying to convey with my sentiments on the matter. I also don't necessarily feel by the sources stating the characters as "President" and "First Lady" that is 100% confirmation they won't appear before they gain these titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Do they say Senator and Mrs.? No. They say PRESIDENT and FRIST LADY. We go with what is verifiable. Period. --Drmargi (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You're being disputed. Discuss it instead of being disruptive. Period. Rusted AutoParts 07:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And stop being uncivil in your edit summaries. Calling people hypocrites won't get you what you want. Rusted AutoParts 07:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's see where we are: there are two sources supporting my edit and none supporting Kennedy being other than the President, Favre says he agrees with me, Winklevi is here to cause trouble, and Rusted Auto Parts thinks he died and was appointed god, but is not contributing to the discussion. That looks like consensus to me. --Drmargi (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read the discussion. Drop the antagonism, it's not helpful in the slightest. Rusted AutoParts 17:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And you've once again reverted back to your preference before consensus was reached. Reported. Rusted AutoParts 17:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I said I agreed in essence, but that I still believe there is no harm in including "American politician" given the reasons I have stated in my responses. I don't believe we have reached a consensus yet, and encourage the continued discussion on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless you are going to list Jackie Kennedy as "John F. Kennedy's wife, who becomes the FirsL Lady of the United States", it is incongruous to have JFK listed as someone who becomes the 35th President. Since we don't know the plotline, and the designation "becomes" is speculation, OR, SYNTH, just list what is specifically and incontrovertibly known. Or don't put descriptions -- the "Recurring" characters do not have descriptions. Softlavender (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

That's what I've been arguing all along. JFK was a U.S. Senator prior to his election as president, including the remainder of the time period this season covers, yet he's identified as President Kennedy in multiple sources, a title that would not have been used to describe pre-January 1961 Kennedy. So the generic use of "politician" is either SYNTH or OR, depending on how you spin the rubic's cube. As I continue to say, we have to go with what the sources say: President Kennedy, not politician Kennedy. (Application of a measure of research would also show us Kennedy never visited the UK while a Senator but made two visits as President, and that all of the dynamics between JFK and Jackie described in one source took place once she became the very-popular First Lady.) BTW, I wouldn't remove the labels. The recurring list needs labels for the remaining characters if anything, given the complexity of the circle of people surrounding the Queen. I keep promising myself that I'll fix that. --Drmargi (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

While I see some people agreeing in part with DM, I don't see an actual consensus. Because of that DM needs to stop edit warring/revert warring immediately and start bringing their case here without her trademark aggression and bullying. A true consensus at this point (in light of the fact DM is strong arming her way to the end she wants to see) would be an agreement between the principal players: RAP and DM. Both of you need to try and work this out together, amicably, rather than creating more hard feelings. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm for whatever the outcome is. Drmargi is the one more interested in making hard feelings. Rusted AutoParts 03:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please discuss content here, not other editors. If there is a reliable source that states outright that the character of JFK appears in the series before he is elected President, then that needs to be supplied before using that in the character description. If however we will not know until the second season actually airs, or until much closer to the airing, there is no deadline on Wikipedia, and we go with the currently citeable facts, which are that John and Jackie Kennedy are President and First Lady in the series. Softlavender (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

We are discussing it, as the content's addition was disputed. You readding the disputed content is not in any way helpful, and I encourage you undo your edit until enough time for others to offer their thoughts can be collected. As I have stated, I'm for whichever result, but I want it discussed as opposed to fighting over it. Rusted AutoParts 06:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content and policy here, not other editors or their behavior. The disputed content (the content with no RS verification) is no longer in the article. Content needs RS-cited verification, or it can be challenged and removed. Softlavender (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether or not he will be featured before or during his presidency, and the sentence "an American politician who becomes"'s repeated removal was what was disputed. Not whether or not it should be left in. The debate is centered around whether or not Kennedy appears before becoming President. I don't care what the result will become, I saw a brewing edit war and elected to get the matter discussed. You didn't help that in any way by redeleting the sentence BEFORE a consensus was reached. Rusted AutoParts 06:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content and policy here, not other editors or their behavior. Only known and citeable facts are allowed on Wikipedia; see WP:V. It is known from the currently supplied citations that the Kennedys appear in the series as President and First Lady. The second season of the series does not air until November -- so unless a WP:RS is found that specifically states outright that the character of JFK appears in the series before he is elected President, then that cannot be added to the character description. Softlavender (talk) 06:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, you clearly don't seem to grasp what the problem here is, and you're once again just repeating yourself and not adding anything of worth. Drmargi was removing content some editors disagreed with and kept doing so after being reverted three times and being asked to discuss the issue. Whether they're right or not, after three editors revert you discuss. I don't know what else to say to be frank. Every time since we conversed at Jack Lowden I've felt like I'm just talking to a wall because I find you repeating yourself and not understanding my point. I'm done with this matter. Rusted AutoParts 07:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content and policy here, not other editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing that to just get under my skin now or something? You're just ignoring what I'm saying and paying attention to what you feel is incorrect, which it isn't. Drmargi's behavior is a point of discussion as they engaged in personal attacks and edit wars during the duration of this "discussion". I count 4 times now you've repeated to me "Please discuss content and policy here, not other editors or their behavior." I got it the first time. It comes off as you talking down to me or treating me like a child. As stated I don't wish to continue discussing the matter, as I've said my piece and Drmargi's conduct just seems to be getting ignored by you. Rusted AutoParts 07:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The content and policies being discussed is due to a result of an editor and their behaviour. It's unavoidable. Don't attempt to force the discussion to a particular way. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please discuss content and policy here, not other editors or their behavior. Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

If you have nothing to contribute to the discussion besides repeat yourself like a broken record, perhaps your skills would be more appreciated elsewhere. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think no descriptors is probably best, since the season has not even aired and will not air until November. We aren't privy to the plot or how exactly each character is important to it, so not having descriptors is fine and probably best. Any of the historical characters can be clicked. Also, having no descriptors prevents spoilers; although Wikipedia does not censor spoilers, it's probably best to avoid them for items that are 8 months away from being aired. Softlavender (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with removing the descriptions. Perhaps it is best if Drmargi notes this consensus, and reverts her edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

And I too agree that the removal of descriptors will reduce the aggravation this whole thing has caused. Rusted AutoParts 07:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to be clear, I personally support either no descriptors or descriptors that match RS and avoid WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If necessary, an WP:RFC can be implemented to decide, but note that we have two issues here: one is whether there should be descriptors, and the second is whether descriptors can violate WP:V. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

@Drmargi: consider yourself reported for edit warring. Since you won't let me on your talk page, I'll just tell you here. Never dealt with anyone so frustrating in my life. Rusted AutoParts 08:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• No descriptors. And for the record, Softlavender, repeating yourself over and over was condescending, treating Alex and RAP like children, and only frustrated them needlessly while contributing nothing of value. In fact, it was pretty much classic WP:JERK behavior that only served to make things worse. It's not the way to seek or build consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:FOC, WP:TPYES, and WP:TPNO. -- Softlavender (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDHT and stop being obtuse. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:37, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. [1] Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page. [2] No personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. [3]. -- Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Then in that case, you should be contributing to the discussion, and not on the actions of contributors in this discussion. Goes both ways. Back to the discussion of content you go. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:58, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Jet?

Compared to most of this Talk section, this is a small item. This article states: "Sets for private quarters, the interior of a private jet, the cabinet room, and the exterior of 10 Downing Street were built at Elstree Studios" I feel it should be changed to "the interior of an aircraft" While I do not have sources at my disposal, I think we can all agree that the aircraft had propellers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8382:B680:94FB:8044:3CCA:F4AB (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy

I think it is worth adding to this section that the scenes where Edward VIII informed his mother Queen Mary of his intention to abdicate and his later abdication speech are ludicrously inaccurate, as Mrs. Simpson is depicted as being by his side in both scenes. In reality, she had already left the country and was living in France and she never met Queen Mary at all in her lifetime. 190.42.25.166 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

If you have sources to support this, please present them. -- Alex^TW 03:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That sums up wikipedia in one sentence. "The sky is blue". Please provide a source. Who cares about historical facts unless there is an internet 'source' to back it up? I tell you what, bring forth a source that says she WAS there and that she DID meet Queen Mary. Good luck with that. "Henry VIII had 6 wives". Please provide a source. You have just humiliated yourself. Good luck with your sad life as a wikipedia fanatic. 181.65.220.50 (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, no source, no include. History is too subject to interpretation, and much of the show's content is behind the scenes. Were you there when King Edward VIII abdicated? No? Then source your contention and we know it's accurate. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 16:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

This has to be the most astonishingly ignorant response in the history of wikipedia. And you call yourself a Doctor? Any biography published on the subject of King Edward & Mrs Simpson gives the details and timeline of the events. Mrs. Simpson leaving Britain for France long before the abdication can be sourced in: 'The King Who Had to Go: Edward VIII, Mrs Simpson and the Hidden Politics of the Abdication Crisis' by Adrian Philips (2016); 'King Edward VIII: The Official Biography' by Philip Zeigler (1990); 'Mrs. Simpson' by Richard Garrett (1979); 'Edward: The uncrowned King' by John Waddington-Feather (2013); 'Abdication: The Rise and Fall of Edward VIII' by Mark Hitchens (2016); 'Edward VIII' by Frances Lonsdale Donaldson (1974); 'That Woman: The Life of Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor' by Anna Seba (2012); 'Wallis Simpson's Diary' by Helen Batting (2009); and many others. The historical accuracy was also dramatized in ITV's 'Edward and Mrs. Simpson' in 1979 and other film and television adaptations. Probably none of these will be acceptable and the 'Doctor' will continue to live and edit in complete ignorance. 110.86.19.122 (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well now, look at that. A source. Several of them. Just what we were asking for. That's how points are supported among learned people. Ignorant? Hardly. I do despair of your reading comprehension, however. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 06:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New cast members

Since we have gotten word about Olivia Colman joining, there were a few things I'd like to discuss. First, even though we are uncertain at this time which roles will be the ones to be recast, I felt it might be more beneficial to alter the "Cast" list to more of a "Characters" list. For example, take what we have now for Queen Elizabeth: {[tq|Claire Foy as Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II}} and change that to Princess Elizabeth, later Queen Elizabeth II (portrayed by Claire Foy in seasons 1 and 2, and Olivia Colman in seasons 3 and 4) or Princess Elizabeth, later Queen Elizabeth II. She is portrayed by Claire Foy in seasons 1 and 2, and Olivia Colman in seasons 3 and 4.. I don't think we should be separating out the 2 (possibly 3) actors because they will all be playing the same people, so some type of formatting I suggested seems the best way to go. Though since they aren't really "characters" maybe the way I created it now Claire Foy (seasons 1 and 2) and Olivia Colman (seasons 3 and 4) as Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II would be best? The second thing I felt should be created is a "Casting" section, again given the unique nature of this series. When I get some time, I'll go back and try and find original casting announcements for the season 1-2 folks and then add in the Colman info and the subsequent new castings as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I restored the original version, although I do think your note in the Production section should probably go back. Colman has been cast in the role for two as-yet unordered seasons. Until they're actually ordered, her name should remain as is, with an added note that S3/4 have not been ordered as yet. Once it is (and we all know it will be), we can rejigger the cast list; when that happens, the description of the Queen will have to be rephrased, given Foy, but not Colman plays the Princess Elizabeth. It will also get tricky when Philip, Margaret and a couple others are re-cast as well. For the sake of simplicity, for now, the way it was originally done is simpler and cleaner. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

As you said, since 3 and 4 have not been officially ordered yet, maybe we shouldn't even include her in the cast section. If we aren't going to format I suggested just yet, then including the headings as you restored too seem premature in my opinion. I will, however, restore the note in the production section, as that seems like the best spot for all of this until the seasons are actually ordered. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a possibility, but it's in the media that she's been cast. How else would you approach it? Let's talk here and avoid making changes to the version we started with until we arrive at something more feasible. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I reworked the language a little in the production section. Given the series is projected for six seasons by Netflix, I'm not sure there's any great harm in adding Colman's name to the cast list, given she has been announced as cast. There was a qualifying statement until it was removed with the rather nonsensical rationale that we weren't a disclaimer site (whatever the hell that is.) ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand that it is intended to be six seasons, but it doesn't mean 100% that that will be a given (though we all know it very well will be). So I'm not denying that she has been cast, I just think per WP:NORUSH we should not add it to the cast section until Netflix confirms the seasons. And we'll have the info in the "Production" section, so it isn't like we are ignoring it completely. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn’t announcing casting for another season serve as confirmation they’re moving forward with another season? Rusted AutoParts 01:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cast changes and announcements don't necessarily mean a new season is guaranteed, no. For example, cast changes were announced for Castle Season 9, but the show was later cancelled and Season 8 was its final season. -- Alex^TW 02:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Cast

@Robberey1705: stupid stupid STUPID rationale to revert my edit there. You say it needs to apply for all, why not add it to them then?

Regardless, it’s been well detailed that the cast is being replaced for season 3. So why does the notation on the applicable individuals keep getting chipped off? Rusted AutoParts 07:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Rusted AutoParts 07:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Guest cast credited with main cast

The Crown credits some guest cast among the main cast when they make what appears to be a significant appearance; the first of these was Stephan Dillaine in Season 1 as artist Graham Sutherland. Clearly, they're not main cast in the sense that Matt Smith or Claire Foy are, and billing them as such is highly misleading. Another editor broke them out as main guest cast, which I then split by season (having had essentially the same idea as the other editor.) This is accurate, clear and more informative; WP:IAR allows us this level of flexibility when needed to improve the article.

So of course, a Project TV member came along and robo-reverted with the "we don't do this" standard excuse. I disagree for two reasons: a) because of the previously cited IAR allows us to do what is needed to make the article clear and; b) Project TV does not have absolute say-so in the layout of these articles. This is an encyclopedia, and we need to be accurate and clear, not just mindlessly follow format chosen by a tiny minority of editors. The layout the other editor and I created works and it's best for the article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Your passive-aggressive tone isn't going to fix this. WP:IAR isn't a free card to do anything that you want and force your revision when it's disputed. Your use of IAR has been duly noted, but if the content is disagreed upon, you still need to gain a WP:CONSENSUS for it.

It's your personal believe that it's what is best for the article; it is mine that it is not. For example, a reference-style inline note (such as those used in episode tables where an episode is released before its initial broadcast date) can easily do exactly what the split does, noting the "guest starring" status of the actor, while still maintaining the guidelines that every other television series article uses. Listing the "guest starring" main actors also reflects what was still left in the infobox. If you disagree with the consensus formed by the (incorrectly described) "tiny minority of editors", as well as the Method of Style that that has been formed over the past however-many years by a vast number of editors, then you need to take that elsewhere. -- Alex^TW 23:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

That's funny. Fashion has come a long way since Adam bit that apple. Meaning can change; so can the rules. Sometimes the past deserves to be buried but even WP recognises that not all stays the same. Sometimes the majority is not right.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, and that's what WP:BOLD is for. However, nobody is exempt from WP:CONSENSUS. -- Alex^TW 10:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:OWNERSHIP Issues

Don't want to end up in an edit war, so going to flag up here a reminder that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone. The below edit - which I have modified in an attempt to reach a collaborative compromise - has been persistently reverted with no explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Crown_(TV_series)&diff=819645406&oldid=819617283

Just to be clear, in its present iteration (through which word count is slightly reduced, taking on board mention of wordiness at my original attempt) this is a slight edit to a synopsis that 1) removes an event that doesn't actually occur in the series (i.e. Elizabeth naming her son Edward) 2) Places Macmillan's resignation in its correct place in the synopsis, where it is currently mentioned at a point where his proffered resignation is declined, and 3) clarifies Elizabeth's confrontation of Philip, placing the "mystery man" issue as its main thrust rather than the minor Ulanova photo (the mention of which could possibly be removed entirely).

I have no idea what is being objected to here, as it seems completely uncontroversial and a blatant improvement (the use of exact dates and timeframes extrapolated from the historical facts rather than the drama is perhaps a wider issue that can be returned to, as I think it is important). So can we discuss, and remember to allow all editors to contribute to the project? U-Mos (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You're not the only editor who has difficulty with this particular editor. He has a long history of a) editing episode summaries over and over without a edit summary and; b) reverting edits to his work (see his talk page), and is not responsive to discussion on his talk page. My concern with the earlier version of the edit was length, one I've also had with some of Njorent's edits as well. I appreciate your openness to my concern; the last version you submitted is fine, now I've seen your explanation above. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and for restoring the edit; much appreciated! U-Mos (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Dr.Margi - this edit was made by me, apparently not logged in. I unintentionally undid Njorent's concurrent edit in the process, which I have not fully reviewed; my only intention was to avoid interpreting a typically Crown-esque complex/ambiguous matter as far as possible with a slight change in emphasis that you can see in the preceding link. Happy to defer to your judgement in that and Njorent's edits to avoid any further difficulties. U-Mos (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, minor matter. Njorent edits without being signed in occasionally, so I assumed it was him. I should have paid closer attention; it was a good edit that tightened up the writing a bit more (a huge problem in episode summaries across WP). Problem solved, and that's what's important! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:52, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Given names? Why?

Why on earth are all the names simply the first or given names? Who is "Tony"? Turns out (I think) that "Tony" is supposed to be Anthony Armstrong-Jones, right? Then why isn't he labeled as such anywhere but on first mention? Unless you read the whole article from top to bottom you don't know who this person is. Same with many other people. Each section should be complete in itself so the reader does not have to keep glancing back to find out who is who. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC).

"Before"

If you use the word before it can have several meanings and implications. Yes, you can have done something in the order of "A" and "B" which would be very clear IF YOU SAW THE PROGRAM. But not everyone sees the program. So, is he saying that up to the time that she affirmed his love he did not go to the parties. So did he go after? Again, if you saw the program you know he said he did not. But if you have not seen he program then did he go after he affirmed his love? That is why "before" is not a good choice of word for the situation.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

There. A comma, much better. -- Alex^TW 23:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The sarcasm isn't needed, Alex. Remember WP:AGF. The new sentence was one mother of a run-on. I've divided it back into two sentences with a minor tweak. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Remember WP:AGF. -- Alex^TW 00:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, honestly Alex, yet another redirect designed to avoid taking responsibility for your own actions? Facepalm ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My actions was fixing the grammar with a comma. Sorry, had to comment, the hypocrisy of quoting guidelines you hate. -- Alex^TW 00:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

And in so doing, you created a run-on sentence, thereby solving one grammar problem by creating another. It's fixed now. Problem solved. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Great job, kids! -- Alex^TW 01:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, now I do not have to take breath to finish the statement. It works.2605:E000:9143:7000:F02E:A380:608E:1E15 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Names

Concerning the recent dispute, a person does not be a person, and then later, become the same person (e.g. "Princess Margaret and later Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon"). Titles changes, yes, and that can easily be reflected in the summaries, no problems. For example, instead of "Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II", we should list it as "Elizabeth, Princess and later Queen". -- Alex^TW 23:36, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Claire Foy as Elizabeth, Princess and later Queen.
• Matt Smith as Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and later Prince, Elizabeth's husband.
• Vanessa Kirby as Margaret, Princess and later Countess of Snowdon, Elizabeth's younger sister.
• Matthew Goode as Antony Armstrong-Jones, later 1st Earl of Snowdon, known as Tony, a society photographer who marries Princess Margaret.

Full examples above. It should definitely be the name that is linked, not the title, as the articles reference the people themselves and not simply their titles. -- Alex^TW 23:53, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Unspecified dates, and two years later...

OK, it's about to get confusing. There's a fair few dates in the episode synopses that are not mentioned on-screen, extrapolated from when the non-fictional events took place. I don't think they should be there. The Crown is a fictionalising of historical events, and I think it's WP:OR to be asserting dates that are not set out by the series itself. Minor timings are changed, naturally, in the process of dramatisation, and there is no way to draw the line between what must be taking place on the historical date and what can be altered without straying into un-encyclopedic territory.

This is especially important in season 2 episode 8 (Dear Mrs. Kennedy). This episode primarily takes place in 1961, which I believe is captioned on-screen at the start. The closing scenes show JFK's assassination, which of course actually took place in November 1963. Currently the synopsis reads "two years later" to acknowledge this apparent time jump, which the episode makes no reference to, and would in fact place the end of the episode within the events of episode 10. This is impossible to reconcile, as even despite episode 10 leading us to believe Elizabeth is in Scotland throughout late 1963, she is clearly not five months pregnant in these scenes (as we find her revving a car to take down a tree!).

The only conclusion can be that, in the narrative of The Crown, the Kennedy assassination does not take place in 1963 for dramatic convenience. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and remove the "two years later" from the synopsis, and I propose that any timeframes and dates not defined within the episodes themselves also be removed. U-Mos (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that where dates aren't given, they shouldn't be in the episode summary. "Later" can be used, although usually in the storyline this is unnecessary as it should be obvious from a well written summary that the events are occurring in the order described. You are right that there are a few places where the timeline seems inaccurate; I remember thinking this when I watched the series. I suspect this was deliberate for dramatic or thematic reasons. MapReader (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

ENGVAR

This article does (and has for some time) contain a mix of British English and American English.

Reading the MoS the correct way to resolve this appears to be to trace back to the first post-stub version of the article that introduces a particular style of usage. As far as I can see this occurs early on 7 November 2016 when British English is used.

Given the subject matter of the article and TV series, and the international co-production of the series, there does not appear to be any reason why the earliest variety of English used in this article should not be maintained, as per MoS:Retain. MapReader (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The established language for the article has been American English for some time. As with many articles on WP, there is occasional use of British English, likely the consequence of the subject matter, the editor's language and/or lack of knowledge of American English, and simple error. The policy you cite MOS:RETAIN to force use of the mixture of American and British English or to remove corrections to American English is misapplied (it has to do with changes from one language to another across an article, not individual edits) and does not trump WP:CONSISTENCY, which establishes we use one language throughout. You have been reverted by two editors, both of whom pointed out that the standing language in this article is American English as this program is a co-production of a British company (Left Bank) owned by an American company (Sony Pictures Television) for an American network (Netflix). There has been extensive discussions, and consensus reached on the subject. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There has been a mix of usage in this article for some time, not any single established usage. MOS:Retain very much applies to individual edits, as ought to be obvious from a casual reading. If there has been previous discussion of Engvar regarding this article, please point me to it? Meanwhile your edits to impose American English on this article would appear to be inappropriate. MapReader (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

What "extensive discussions"? What "consensus"? I see no sign of that in the archives.

MOS and common sense say that this should be using British English, and the fervent insistence on American English is a weird hill to die on. --Calton | Talk 00:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: The extensive discussions and consensus concerning that this program is a co-production of a British company (Left Bank) owned by an American company (Sony Pictures Television) for an American network (Netflix) can be seen at Talk:The Crown (TV series)/Archive 2#British or American-British?. A further discussion on language can be seen at Talk:The Crown (TV series)/Archive 2#Language. Both of these make up almost the entirety of the second archive, I guess much looking didn't occur. -- Alex^TW 00:49, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked at that discussion you cite on language from Feb 17. One editor says "shouldn't the article be in British?". You respond correctly pointing out that the series isn't solely British, and referring to Retain (which actually points to British, based on first use, although the context of your comment suggests you were arguing differently). A third editor says he feels it should be British. A fourth editor joins to say s/he too thinks it should be British. The discussion then stops (except for a comment nine months later about a point of detail), and the matter appears to have been left - but I am baffled as to how three editors suggesting the article should be in British plus you citing Retain without appearing to have checked the history can possibly be presented to us here as "extensive discussions and consensus"? MapReader (talk) 07:01, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I read those. The first has fuck-all to do with the variant of language used, and the second isn't "extensive" or "consensus" by even the most generous measure. So, help me out: where are the ACTUALLY "extensive discussions" that are setting "consensus" regarding the actual issue at hand? --Calton | Talk 02:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, @AlexTheWhovian:, my comment was specifically about the language and was pretty short. so I guess much reading didn't occur. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

And pro-tip: WP:AGF is worth looking into, if you can take the time from your no-doubt busy schedule. --Calton | Talk 02:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I recommend you do the same before you violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Your own personal opinion on what the discussions are about have been noted. -- Alex^TW 02:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex, there is no need to drag this discussion in a personal direction. The matter is quite straightforward: had a settled discussion reached a consensus on Engvar, the article would have been tagged and its settled styling would have reflected that variety of English used predominantly throughout. Instead, what we have here is an article untagged for Engvar, where the first style used sixteen months ago was British, but which has for a long time contained many examples of both. Hence I applied the policy within the MoS - which you know well - about first use in order to achieve consistency. After a series of reverts I moved to retaining mixed use in the hope that consideration could move to the talk page. When the editor continued to revert I tried a series of Commonality edits to defuse the issue of the disputed words - edits that all look perfectly reasonable in terms of wording to me ("state takeover of the Suez Canal" is surely more accessible for readers than either "nationalisation" or "nationalization", etc.). With most editors that would have been a reasonable point to settle, allowing discussion to move to the talk page. Unfortunately it didn't succeed here. MapReader (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I would add that there is surely an argument based on national ties, given that the creative input appears mostly British and the subject matter of the series very obviously so. Putting a quote in American English into the mouth of Prince Philip looks somewhat ridiculous to me. But the 'national ties' argument is clearly more contestable than the first use provisions of the MoS, hence I was reluctant to go there. But other editors may feel differently. MapReader (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

To summarise: The finding that the "variety found in the first post-stub revision" (MoS:retain) is British English, as the first series plot summaries were first filled out on 7 November 2016, has been put and not been contested (that particular first edit appears to have been stable through until this month). Subsequently the article has contained a varying mix of usage. An earlier discussion of Engvar identified from Feb 2017 saw Headhitter, Favre1fan93 and Eurosong supporting British English for this article, with AlexTheWhovian citing MoS:retain but without joining the dots. There appears to be an argument to be made from MoS:ties (given the majority of creative input on both sides of the camera, and the subject matter); however, given the MoS:retain conclusion, this would only affect date format and is therefore not priority. Meanwhile MoS:Commonality has defused recent edit warring. The appropriate way forward therefore is to tag the article as British English, applying policy and avoiding the need to go round the same houses the next time the same question arises, continue to apply Commonality where appropriate as with any other article, and for editors to decide whether in such circumstances a debate on national ties is then worth having. MapReader (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

On a sidenote, one place where I'd say American usage is more appropriate is in using "season" over "series" - as Netflix uses that terminology worldwide for its original programming. U-Mos (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't seen any suggestion that this shouldn't be as distributed; terminology for the structure of series can vary by programme even within the UK. MapReader (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Cast list formatting

I wanted to revisit this since the new actors for the three leads have all been confirmed and we are getting some additional season 3 casting. How should we represent the new actors in the cast list? Here are two options I've thought of:

• A) Claire Foy (seasons 1-2) and Olivia Colman (season 3) as Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II.
  • Which would then become in later seasons: Claire Foy (seasons 1-2), Olivia Colman (season 3-4) and Actress C (seasons 5-6) as Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II.
• B) Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II (portrayed by Claire Foy (seasons 1-2) and Olivia Colman (season 3))

I think either of these would work and be clear to the readers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll weigh in at greater length later, when I have more time, but a quick thought: only Claire Foy played the Princess Elizabeth. Whatever we do should make that clear. Likewise with Matt Smith as Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 19:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing your additional thoughts, but I also feel we shouldn't get too hung up on titles and who portrayed who when they were known by such titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest the first, and just drop the titles. This would prevent any unnecessary detail concerning titles that can be detailed elsewhere. So: Claire Foy (seasons 1–2) and Olivia Colman (season 3) as Elizabeth II. -- Alex^TW 05:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

We could also go the table route too, as another option. I don't have time at the moment to mark something up, but if titles are a concern, that could be a way to solve that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

NO table. Loathesome things; they become about episode counts, not describing the characters. Alex probably has the best solution. We don't need every iteration of the characters' names. We might want to flip the order of listing to Elizabeth II played by Claire Foy (seasons 1–2) and Olivia Colman (season 3), like B above. I like the look of that better, and it serves the reader by enhancing ease of use. We generally look up a character, then find out who the actor is, not the reverse. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:41, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest the closest to MOS:TVCAST guidelines in this unusual case, with an entirely new incoming cast, would be to create separate sections for each set of cast members. I.e., section off the current main cast list as Seasons 1-2, and create a new Season 3 list below. May also make sense to group the recurring characters into two-season sections below too. I'm definitely against the above option B, which would be a switch from cast list to character list; that's a red flag against MOS:REALWORLD in my mind, though I accept that TVCAST allows either cast or character lists with no indication where one would be preferable over the other (which I've always found odd). In this instance, I think the most helpful to readers would be to delineate the separate casts entirely considering it is a wholesale change. U-Mos (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

While I still support "Cast as Character", "Character as Cast" could also work, and TVCAST also supports character then cast. As it's then characters first, I would recommend not spitting into separate seasons, and listing it as DrM suggested, as separate sections for every two seasons is going to become too cumbersome once the third set of cast are announced. Listing the cast/characters as characters first isn't a flag against REALWORLD in my opinion, as we're saying that they're portrayed by cast, and not describing it entirely from an in-universe view. I'd only support a table once we get up to at least the fifth season, and know the cast for Seasons 5 and 6 and therefore the complete cast for the series, rather than only halfway through. (However, if a separate characters article was created, I'd support its inclusion there.) -- Alex^TW 04:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I like DrM's idea as well and think that could work. I, like Alex, don't think we should be separating the sections into even further subsections as U-Mos suggested. These are still the same "characters" even though new actors are portraying them. So as with any other TV series, if a recasting occurs, the credit placement remains the same with some notation done explaining the actor change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I’m fine with whatever as long as we can eventually start implementing something. Getting pretty irritated now with this one particular edit always being reverted when I make it. Rusted AutoParts 03:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It wouldn't be reverted if you wait for a consensus. I don't think that the new cast should be included until credited in the new season, however. -- Alex^TW 04:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The initial consensus I recollect was to hold off adding new cast and indicating cast member season lengths until the third season was officially announced to happen, which is now the case. When the discussion became about how to format it, I don’t know. This was the first time I made an edit here in a couple months. So whatever is decided, I don’t really care which way. Rusted AutoParts 04:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

To expand on the two options above, I think any combination of the multiple actors in a single line would be unhelpful, a) because of the number of times we'd have to cumbersomely repeat "A (season 1-2) and B (season 3) [and C] playing X", and the issues of changing titles gone into above, and b) that this would mean (for instance) Colman, Menzies and Bonham-Carter being listed nowhere near Jason Watkins, when they are all joining the cast together. I would say Colman et al warrant more prominence in the cast list than appearing halfway down a mass list, hence my suggestion of sub-sections. I don't think an eventual three clear subsections is particularly cumbersome, and indeed would be a lot neater and clearer that it is three distinct companies of actors (to be clear, I'm suggesting three subsections for the main cast list only for now).

Also, I don't see any need to wait until the season's release before adding the officially announced cast members. We don't ignore castings for a new series before it airs, do we? U-Mos (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding new cast members, new castings are generally covered in a "castings" section (or the like), with additions to the "Cast" section and infobox once the season actually begins airing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Is this backed by any guidelines or policy? I've seen that asserted before, but never come across a reasoning behind it. (WP:TVCAST again offers nothing on this) U-Mos (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Accolades

I think its time to have all the awards and nominations in a new article. Rudeby88 (talk) 02:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute by providing a draft of such an article in the draftspace. -- Alex^TW 02:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding actor, need some help

Hello all, I'm primarily a lowly grammar/spelling wiki editor, but I found a source for a missing character from the page named Professor Hogg, who plays a prominent role in episode 7 season 1. The actor is Alan Williams, as cited in this Telegraph article in the last paragraph: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/on-demand/0/the-crown-episode-7-review-public-and-private-life-collide-in-a/

However, I've no idea how to add a source and/or citation, and I don't want to make the edit and then have someone else come along and remove it because I didn't cite it properly. Could someone provide some guidance, point me in the right direction, or perhaps even perform the edit themselves? Thank you so much in advance for your help and guidance. SaltwaterSky (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@SaltwaterSky: Thank you for presenting this info. However, we are only listing the main character and those who are recurring (4 or more episode appearances) at the article currently. This actor and character only appeared in one episode as a guest star, thus they are excluded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Historical Inaccuracy re Suez

Hi,

The synopsis for Episode 12 states that Eden "withdraws British troops from Suez" after pressure from the Americans.

What actually happened was:

1. Eden, after a series of high-drama Cabinet meetings, one of which took place with the big protest going on at Trafalgar Square at the time, ordered a ceasefire shortly after the troops went in (Britain had been bombing Egyptian airfields for a while; IIRC British and French paras had already landed a day or two earlier, and seaborne troops were going in as the ceasefire was ordered, but it doesn't matter). Macmillan allegedly exaggerated the run on the pound, and then literally threw his hands in the air when news came through of US oil sanctions.

2. Eden buggered off to Jamaica, leaving Rab Butler in charge. Selwyn Lloyd was desperately trying to negotiate with the Americans and Macmillan had been sucking up to them for months.

3. There was then a period of a few weeks (IIRC) in which Butler and Lloyd tried to negotiate a face-saving British presence at the Canal (Britain and France had been pretending that they were "separating the Egyptian and Israeli combatants" and "protecting the Canal"; the collusion with Israel, although widely suspected, was not admitted until years later). The US insisted that Butler order a complete withdrawal. Butler had already annoyed his own supporters on the left of the Tory Party by reluctantly going along with the invasion, and was now left looking like an "appeaser" in the eyes of the right all over again. All very unfair, but that's politics for you.

4. Eden came back from Jamaica. He quickly found he was no longer in control of the government and used another health scare as an excuse to resign before he was made to do so. A straw poll of the Cabinet overwhelmingly chose Macmillan as his successor (Churchill also advised the Queen to send for Macmillan; Eden's advice is unclear).

I haven't actually watched the series so I can't comment on whether it's an inaccuracy/piece of dramatic licence in the series or an inaccurate summary by somebody who is unfamiliar with the fine detail of the history.Paulturtle (talk) 23:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Harold Wilson had four terms

While Harold Wilson had served as Prime Minister in non-consecutive periods in 1964-70 and 1974-76 it is incorrect to describe each of them as terms.

Wilson had four terms in 1964-66, 1966-70, 1974 and 1974-76.

122.106.83.10 (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming Season Page

Is it time to create a page for Season 3? The show is a month or so away from airing, and there's a lot of information that can be added to it regarding filming and casting. I note that there is not currently an existing draft page. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

As long as you can meet the WP:GNG standards, I‘d go ahead. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree, please go ahead TheMysteriousEditor Littlemonday (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping somebody else would do it lol. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:The Crown (season 3). Next time, WP:DIY. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

The Crown (season 4)

This is a notice that there is a draft for the fourth season at Draft:The Crown (season 4) until such a time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's been filming for a few months now so should it be included in the mainspace now? TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy - Mr Pankaj Chandak - Moved to Production.

I've moved a paragraph from historical accuracy section to Production / Filming. It states a Mr Pankaj Chandak performed the King's lung surgery for The Crown's filming, however it also states Sir Clement Price Thomas performed the surgery originally. All the references detail is that actual surgeons, including Chandak, were used for filming as oppose to actors as Peter Morgan was highly impressed by the research Chandak did for the show. It's possible that this is debating a Professor Nizam Mamode being supposedly cast as Sir Clement despite the series not crediting him as a character in the show nor acknowledging Sir Clement's involvement in the real surgery, but I've researched the episode's critical feedback and cannot see any sources to back this. Thomas died in 1973 so this may also mislead an inaccuracy that he himself did not act in the show? Think this belongs in the production not Historical accuracy.

ToonIsALoon (talk) 16:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

The Crown sees Wikipedia surge on British history searches

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Merging featured players with main cast

It has been suggested (by User:Bignole) in this discussion that we merge the list of featured players with the list of main cast members, due to the first being a result of WP:OR. The actors would be moved to their original credit position within the main cast with a note noting that they only appeared in one episode of a given season. For an existing example of how this would look, check Outlander (TV series)#Cast and characters. We should discuss if this is appropriate for this series in particular, as it is a rare case on Wikipedia where the main cast is divided into two sections based on episode counts.--TheVampire (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Accuracy

Information that's relevant and verified by reliable sources was removed with the given reasoning "OR - the citations are bits of evidence for a conclusion, not a reference to published comment about the series". That's a misrepresentation, as, like about 50% of the section, it simply iterates facts with the reliable sources to back them up. Reliably sourced facts aren't theories, arguments, or opinions. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't the one to remove that paragraph, but it most definitely is WP:Original research and should not be included. -- Calidum 18:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Just saying it's OR isn't an argument. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Please read the policy I linked to instead of sealioning. Do you not understand what original research is? You cannot take quotes from the script and claim they provide false information based on unrelated articles. -- Calidum 18:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've been editing here for close to two decades. So, please, don't waste your time patronizing. WP:OR itself states "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented... [A] reliable source must be provided for... anything challenged or likely to be challenged", all of which I did. So, the accusation of violating WP:OR remains unsubstantiated. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 18:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The point here is that, if you wish to include within the article comment that the storyline suggests the royals don’t recognise Australia’s independence, you need to find a published reliable source where that comment is made. It’s a fundamental rule of WP that you can’t edit in your own commentary, however much evidence you are able to martial in its support. As an encyclopaedia WP reports what is already published by others, not what individual editors think they can prove. I hope this is helpful. MapReader (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

And yet that is so clearly not at all what I added. It had nothing to do with what "the royals" purport to recognize or not recognize, nor did it contain any commentary whatsoever. Not even any interpreting. Four sourced facts. That's it. That's all. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The words you added were “dialogue implies member-states of the Commonwealth of Nations are not fully independent”. But that implication was your own, uncited, conclusion. The citation you provided merely confirmed the dialogue in the episode, which is not at issue, since we can all watch the episode. You need a citation confirming that the words were taken in the way that you suggest. Given the notorious sensitivity of the Australian media on such matters - and the voluminous articles by experts already published that go over every minutiae of the series looking for inaccuracy - if others have drawn the same implication, there should be reliable commentary that you can cite. If you can’t find any, then just perhaps you have drawn an implication that others aren’t seeing? Kind regards MapReader (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This seems a very blatant example of WP:SYNTHESIS, and even that's being generous and accepting an unofficial transcript of an episode as a source. Correct to remove it. U-Mos (talk) 06:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Calidum was entirely in the right here. CapnZapp (talk) 14:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Cast, Reception

The Cast and Characters section has its own subarticle but still remains very long here. This section needs to be pruned to a summary, since the details are elsewhere. CapnZapp (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The same with Reception - Accolades could be spun off to a subpage of its own. CapnZapp (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A good idea. I don’t see anyone opposing your doing this? MapReader (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

As sections that are specific to each season, the "Awards and nominations" and "Historical accuracy" sections needs to be trimmed heavily to a summariziation for just the parent article, with each season-specific section to be moved to the actual season articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as cast and characters are concerned, I would remove everything but the main cast here (including featured and all recurring), as the list of characters article contains everything already. I will check/update the whole cast for season 4 following the criteria discussed on the talk page as soon as I'm caught up with the episodes :D --TheVampire (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

This is actually the standard for WP:TV, only main cast being listed at the parent article when a separate cast/characters article exists. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I see no issue with the recent change, per my comment above; this is standard procedure. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

As I boldly did with my recent edit, I would remove everyone but main and featured as they are all credited in the opening sequence. Drmargi As there are no challenges here and this is standard procedure as Alex said, I would like to restore the edit.--TheVampire (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Support removing recurring characters from this article. U-Mos (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Critical response

This section feels underdeveloped for a show of this caliber, almost entirely relying on aggregators. Each season should have a full paragraph of human-curated critic summaries and characterizations, just like every other major show. This current skeleton of a section must be a major contributor to why this article still rates only as C-class. We can do better at Wikipedia! CapnZapp (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There are season articles where the reception sections are expanded upon with individual reviews, such as The Crown (season 1)#Reception. This is a very large article, so it makes sense for this reception section here to be brief, mostly focusing on aggregators, which act as a good summary/overview of the critical reception. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Date format

A long time ago, the date format for this article was set at mdy, on the basis that the first season screening dates were US dates arising from the series being released in the US prior to the UK. However this is no longer the case, with international release of the next series scheduled for the coming Sunday. The series itself is showing dmy format dates on screen (for example S3, E7 at 8:00 for the date of the moon landings - "16th July, 1969") and on this basis ISTM that the article, which is tagged as in British English, should be adjusted to dmy? MapReader (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Given the number of page views, and lack of comment, is this now uncontroversial? The Netflix trailer to season four uses dmy, as does season four itself (example, opening episode nine). MapReader (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

MapReader, I very much disagree. Per MOS:DATERET, if there is no major reason to change it, then the date format should be left as is, as it has been MDY for years since. National ties do not relate to this issue, as it is both a US- and UK-produced series. What Netflix does with their own productions is irrelevant to Wikipedia, we have our own guidelines, excactly the same as how we have guidelines against using official titles or capitalizations (for example). Thus, the original date format needs to be restored and an actual consensus gained to change it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur. This is a joint production, and the article was originally written in American English. Over time, there has been a lot of slippage into British English. There's no benefit or reason to change the date format, per Alex21's citation of policy. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 07:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Just on the Engvar, that isn't an accurate summary. The first use of a national variety of English in the article was British in October 2016, which was subsequently edited over; Engvar was cemented when the full episode summaries started to be written into the article shortly after release the following month. There was a discussion about this in 2018 and the article has been tagged as British English for two and a half years now. MapReader (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

On the date formats, although you have put it in italics, the policy as written doesn't say anything about reasons needing to be "major" (although I'd suggest that the fact that the series itself now uses international dmy format both on screen and in the trailer and promotional literature, should be considered a major reason, as Netflix recognises the global audience for the show). The three criteria are strong national ties, editor consensus, with the tie-breaker being first use. National ties have not been established by consensus (although I see that Netflix on its own website classifies the series as a "British TV Show"). Editor consensus is why I raised the question here. On date format, they have chopped about over the years (incidentally I found this edit[4] of your own, where the only change was moving an mdy to dmy). The very first use was dmy back in early 2016 with the addition "Netflix released the first trailer on the 6th January 2016"; this was subsequently edited out and later edits tended towards mdy. Strictly on first use, therefore, the article should be dmy. However it would clearly be better to proceed by consensus. As both of you have been involved in extensive edit wars over nationality of this page previously (including over matters as trivial as reversing the alphabetical order of "UK and US" in the infobox[5][6]), it would be good to get some neutral views. Editors that have contributed to related previous discussions are Favre1fan93, Rusted AutoParts, Softlavender, Winkelvi, Calton, U-Mos, Firebrace, Somethingwickedly, Ebonelm, Headhitter, Eurosong MapReader (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Per DATERET, the only reasons listed for changing the dating format are based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. I've already said that 1) there are no strong national ties to the article due to the multi-national production, which consensus has indeed agreed that this is both a UK and US production, contrary to your statement of a lack of consensus, and 2) there was no consensus formed to change the date format. Early 2016 may have been the earliest DMY addition, but this article has existed since June 2015, at which point it used MDY (note that you need to concern any date that appears, including those used in references, per MOS:DATEUNIFY), and again per DATERET, [t]he date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used. (Interesting about the comment in regards to edit-warring, given your personal history. Unfortunate.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's a joint UK-US series, but it's about a British institution and it is set almost exclusively in the UK, so I think the WP entry should be written in British English, using the dmy date format. Headhitter (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

By lack of consensus on nationality, I meant lack of consensus as to any specific national tie, and apologise if that wasn't clear. But, as I said, Netflix itself does now classify this as a British TV show. On date format, the relevant wording is topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country, and, again, I suggest there is a case to be made here, based on the topic of this article. I don't think you can back-argue from DATEUNIFY (which actually sets out some options) to DATERET, particularly as DATERET specifically refers to a "major" contribution - a citation date, which can be autofilled by a template and often simply reflects the citation - isn't a major contribution. But, as I said, the better route is consensus and the views of other editors are welcomed. (by the way, I don't think your closing comment is helpful - I was specifically referring to POV on this article, and I linked to some evidence; in relation to general editing, you are welcome to check my block record, over the last decade) MapReader (talk) 10:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There is a consensus that there is no specific national tie, hence there is not a lack of consensus as to having to have one specific national tie. How Netflix categorizes their shows is up to them; we have reliable sources stating that it is also an American show in equal proportions. I can certainly quote DATEUNIFY, as you can simply look at the older versions of the article to show that references used an MDY format long before a DMY format was introduced into the article. Whether it's automatically filled in or not is irrelevant; major contributions were made to the article in 2015, and thus the MDY format is the original format. Views by other editors are absolutely more than welcome; might I suggest that when a wider community view is required, you post to the relevant WikiProject or Manual of Style, instead of pinging a selection of editors? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't regard the detail of a citation as being a "major" contribution, and indeed having that word in the MoS is clearly intended to discount minor contributions such as that, and makes little sense otherwise. But we are both agreed that the views of other editors are needed; let's concentrate on that. Those I pinged were everyone who contributed to the earlier discussions on Engvar, save one account no longer existing and another indefinitely banned. If you wish to broaden the discussion by flagging it elsewhere in a neutral way, please be my guest; you are more familiar with the best spots to do so. MapReader (talk) 10:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources and citations aren't major to articles? Sources and citations are what makes Wikipedia what it is, they are the primary reason for the existence of every sourced article. That's major. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Since the MoS qualifies “contribution” with “major”, there must be something that would be considered “minor”, and IMHO the date formatting of a footnote is such. In any case, the proposition here is that, just as WP uses DMY for articles about the US military, because the US military itself uses DMY, we should use DMY for this article - because Netflix itself uses DMY for The Crown. Let’s see what others think. MapReader (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree and may I also point out, that the vast majority of the world's population use DMY. Only the US, Canada, and a handful of smaller countries predominantly use the non-sensical MDY format. However, this is well-trodden ground. Last time it came up we were effectively told to get over it because America. Unfortunately, I don't think this time will be any different... Firebrace (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Gee, it would be refreshing to have a discussion of issues surrounding these joint productions without someone boo-hooing about the meanie Americans, especially given the documented pattern of bullying by British editors on WP. Alex is neither British nor American and is very rule-focused; he has no skin in the nationality game. This article was originally in American English, and there was never a good reason provided to make the change to British English, etc. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I also agree that there was never a good reason provided to swap from American to British English. Don't fix what isn't broken. The format of the dates does not change ones understanding of the article, and hasn't in the four years that the article's existed, it provides exactly the same content, so there's no need to change it based on one's perception of what is American or British. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The proposition isn’t advanced on the basis of national ties, but simply that we should use the same format as does the show itself. That should be both sensible and uncontroversial. If you wish to alert a wider audience to the discussion, I’d suggest doing so soon. MapReader (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. What the show does is irrelevant here; how the producers decided to list the dates is up to them, we have our own guidelines and policies.

Given that it was you that pinged a variety of editors to join the discussion you started, I'd recommend you do so. You mentioned I was familiar with the best spots to do so; WT:TV and WT:MOSTV are the best places to start. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Changing to DMY, by consensus and to corroborate with the long-standing British English of the article, makes sense. I'd also like to point out that The Crown is entirely British produced, but American commissioned. That's an important distinction over, for example, Chernobyl (miniseries) or His Dark Materials (TV series) (both UK/US co-productions commissioned jointly by UK/US networks). U-Mos (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Invited here from my talk page after I made some edits at The Crown (season 4). I'm very surprised the (joint) question of date style and English variation is any sort of an issue. Per U-Mos, The Crown is wholly UK produced; per MapReader, the relevant consideration is "topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country", which would mean Britain, and overwhelmingly so. Dmy is the most commonly used form for dates in Brit English. With respect to those citing a need for a major reason to change the date style, and/or the fact that this article's original style was American English, I'd say it's puzzling that the article was ever written in anything but British English – it doesn't make sense.

Marius1603: You just recently changed all the dates back to mdy at the series 4 article without offering any explanation (here and here). Why was that? The article carries a dmy dates tag, so my changes were merely consistent with that. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Posts to individual user talkpages? Very frowned upon. Were there any other user talkpage posts, or was it just to a single editor? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Uh? Perhaps you could try to be less adversarial; you seem more interested in "winning" the point than seeing that the appropriate Engvar/date option is in place for what is a majority British production. I was impressed that MapReader's personal take on this issue wasn't even evident until after I'd replied to their first message on my talk page. (ie, I'd taken it initially that they disapproved of my making changes to match the article style tag ...) It could be said, on the strength of my edits at Season 4, that I'd just "made substantial edits to the topic or article", anyway. JG66 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not at all. I told the starting editor where to post to gain a wider consensus, and instead they've ignored it and posted to a single user's talk page. I've already said my piece on the format for an American-British production; whatever the discussion gets closed as will happen and we can all more forward from there, I have no issues over it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's helpful, Alex. Just to be clear, I had no contact with this editor until he landed on the Season Four article and edited some of the date formats. As s/he says, I simply invited him neutrally to this talk page - as the appropriate route when something is under discussion, rather than having the format edited back and forth on the page. On this discussion itself, we now have as many editors commenting and a stronger consensus emerging than in the discussion you referred to above about the series's nationality, but I am happy to let this discussion run a bit longer. The original suggestion to seek views from broader topic pages was your own and, while your pointer to a couple of such talk pages was helpful, this is a strictly local and relatively trivial matter affecting pages relating to this series only. If we can get a consensus here I don't see the need (and indeed would feel it overkill) to be raising one series's date format on a page like MOSTV.

JG66: I changed it back to MDY because it’s been like that for the last seasons. Unless there is a permanent decision to change the format completely over to DMY for all the pages related to The Crown, it should stay MDY in my opinion. Marius1603 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Marius1603, agreed. Conformity is key, only change it once this discussion has been closed with a clear consensus. {{Use dmy dates}} was added by MapReader after their second comment to this discussion, without any actual discussion or consensus. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Marius1603, we certainly don't want different formats for different seasons, not least because they all feed through to the List of episodes article. The purpose of this discussion is to consider a switch to DMY for all pages relating to The Crown, as you say, to reflect the fact that Netflix/The Crown itself is using DMY both onscreen in the series and to promote it, and to align with the already established use of British English (as also used by Netflix). MapReader (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I just saw the moon landing episode and the date on the screen was 16 July 1969 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.185.106 (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

After two weeks and a reasonable number of editors contributing for a strictly page-specific question, there is consensus sufficient to restore the original change made to the date format for The Crown articles. In policy, DATERET enables this to be done by editor consensus. Objections raised mostly relate to national ties, which have not been pertinent to nor are established by this discussion. DATETIES is of some relevance with its statement that format should follow usage in topics where a particular format has become customary. Thank you to everyone who took part. MapReader (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not a decision you make unilaterally. Concensus is a mutual decision, and I don't see any mutuality here. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 08:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The proposer closing the discussion and making a consensus after refusing to make an effort for a wider reach, in a discussion they clearly canvassed for? Very uncollaborative behaviour. Given that there is a clear disagreement (or a lack of agreement against the points proposed), and if they want a clear consensus closed by an uninvolved editor, the next most likely step is an RFC. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

MapReader, I suggest you start an RfC on this issue. From my (admittedly) limited involvement, it seems to me that some editors here are being plain awkward. In the face of that, the way to go would seem to be a clearly and neutrally worded question put forward to the wider community. Having said that, you're right that the majority of people weighing in here do favour dmy – and that's good enough for me, too (without an RfC).

If a series or film is a predominantly UK production, and its subject matter concerns a British individual – more than that, a British institution – and the majority of its cast are British, I struggle to see how anyone would want to see this article's style as anything but British English with the most common associated style points (dmy dates, spaced en dashes) imposed. Similarly, it just wouldn't make sense to see a majority US production, focused on an icon of American culture, with mostly well-known American actors, treated as anything but an AmEnglish article, even if there's some Brit finance or talent involved; and yes, even if the article originated with BritEnglish style and the dmy date option. We should be striving to do the most logical thing, not clutching at straws to justify retaining what seems more like an illogical option. JG66 (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed about the RFC. But unfortuntaly, again, it is another suggestion the editor has ignored, in the face of multiple disagreements, and gone ahead and made their pointed edits. I've saved this discussion for behavioural evidence, should a report against this editor ever come to light.

Consensus has agreed in the past that this is an equal American-British production, hence the lack of a leading country in the lead and both countries listed in all infoboxes. Subject and cast are irrelevant to the nationality of a series; if an Australian company produced a series that hired 100% Spanish actors about European events, it would still be an Australian series. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when I said "plain awkward" above, yours was the username that instantly came to mind.

Is it an equal Am-Brit production, allowing for all the factors such as cast, crew, finance, locations? This would need to be determined forensically, if necessary. If it is "equal", then the subject matter tilts the choice towards Brit English, anyway. JG66 (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted; my apologies if you dislike that editors disagree with you. My opinion and example stays the same, per previous consensus', and a new discussion will need to take form to override the fact that it is an American-British series. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with disliking it when editors disagree with me. It's your attitude and what it demonstrates – accusations of canvassing, veiled threats. JG66 (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Not an accusation at all. An editor reached out to only a single other editor that shared their view. That's WP:CANVAS directly, I recommend you take a read. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think such comments from you are appropriate behaviour. You will be well aware that contacting an editor who, unprompted, made significant edits to one of the articles directly pertinent to the matter under discussion is entirely reasonable under APPNOTE. By coming along and changing all the date formats in one article to DMY s/he was clearly entering the debate uncanvassed. MapReader (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

And now you're edit-warring over a lack of consensus. This is getting worse. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The sensible thing to do is draw a line under this now. Consensus doesn't require unanimity but reflects the balance of editor opinion, the arguments presented, and any relevant policies. The balance of opinion in the above discussion is clear, and the arguments and policies lean in the same direction. The editors with a minority view keep returning to this British/American thing (btw your hypothetical about the Australian series doesn't reflect policy - its descriptor would rest on how it is described in the RS, as per MOSTV), yet the change has not been put forward on the basis of national ties, but is made by consensus and matches the choice Netflix itself has made when producing the series. At no stage have I "refused" wider discussion; I simply didn't regard a relatively minor article-specific matter as needing to be flagged on pages such as MOSTV, when there are no wider implications. We have a stronger consensus than in the (also strictly local) discussion on nationality to which you refer, and there are no behavioural issues here. You are right that changing the weak consensus on nationality would require a new discussion, which would rely principally on the published sources as per the MOS. I suspect it would lean British (the fact that Netflix describes it as a "British TV Show" is a compelling piece of evidence), but this is not the discussion we were having here. MapReader (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

You've been recommended twice, by two different editors, to take it to an RFC. That's on you for ignoring it both times. Nor do you get to "close" a discussion you started, you should have reached out to DRN for a closure. But hey, that's now three wider-community options you've chosen not to follow and refused. Do you have anything else you'd like to get out, or is that it? -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Support DMY. The series is commissioned by a US company, produced by a Japanese conglomerate and is no doubt watched throughout the English-speaking world. However, its subject is British, and that is a strong national tie. I can't see any rationale for using MDY. Arcturus (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

As someone somewhat uninvolved (I watch the series, but rarely edit the articles), I support the usage as DMY for logical reasons. It's co-production between the US and UK, but the series creator, writers, directors, majority of the cast, filming locations, and subject matter is British. The Netflix webpage for the series also labels it as a "British TV show". The poster art for season 4 uses DMY format as well. I think all of those examples support the "national ties" reasoning from MOS:DATERET. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on date format

Should dates on all articles pertaining to The Crown be changed to the date-month-year (DMY) format? 00:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a British TV drama about a British subject, obviously it must be DMY. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a joint American-British production, so it has ties to both countries. As such, it should use MDY per WP:DATERET: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." -- Calidum 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, strong national ties to the topic. Not many Royals are American, I can think of Wallis Simpson and Meghan Markle, both by marriage not by birth. So the topic is British. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The archived discussion on nationality was actually inconclusive, with no clear consensus either way, and might be worth looking at again in due course now that Netflix itself is badging the series as a British TV show; descriptions used within articles rely upon direct citation from RS and not on POV being pushed by a handful of editors. But the earlier discussion, from which a clear consensus emerged, reflects use of DMY within the show and provides sufficient reason for a change, regardless of the position on nationality. MapReader (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

DMY seems clearly the correct choice here. Almost everybody involved with the series is British, almost everything related to the series production occurs in Britain, the series is set in Britain and concerns fundamentally British events, the reception section is driven by British reviewers, the show is released in Britain before anywhere else. I can't see any strong claim to MDY - the presence of John Lithgow trumps all? Awoma (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to ensure no misinformation arises: the show is released around the world simultaneously (i.e. season 4 on 15 November, midnight PST/8am GMT etc.). U-Mos (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct. Not sure quite where I got that from. Perhaps the DVD/BluRay releases which seem to be earlier in the UK. The TV releases are simultaneous. Awoma (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I would invite U-Mos to review RFCBEFORE and RFCEND and consider wrapping this up now. The clear consensus we already had on 26 November has been reenforced by three of the four comments posted since then supporting DMY. This talk page had a good flurry of views across the closing days of November, but neither it nor this RfC are now attracting much traffic. The consensus this discussion has achieved is stronger than many that get implemented unremarked and unchallenged. MapReader (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus before. You've been told this by multiple editors, and you don't get to determine consensus for a discussion you started. It's that simple. :) -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's crystal clear there was, and is, a consensus, as set out above. MapReader (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

As none of the editors commenting above seem to have i-voted here, I hope a closing admin will consider the discussion that led to this RfC. (Just thought I'd say it; in my experience, participants in a related discussion do normally repeat their position in the RfC.) Two points at MOS:DATEVAR are relevant to this issue (my emphasis applied):

• If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.
• The date format chosen in the first major contribution in the early stages of an article (i.e., the first non-stub version) should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page.

The Crown is about Queen Elizabeth II and the British royal family. Following the links from this article, the show's credited creator and producer are both British. The vast majority of the cast, crew and locations are British (certainly not American). From all the directors linked in the four series, all are British except for Christian Schwochow, who's German. The show might be a "co-production", but it's so obviously a majority UK production, and the article style should reflect that. It should never have been written in American English or with anything but dmy dates, from the very start – that's the problem. JG66 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MapReader: Per WP:RFCEND, it is in no way beholden on me to close the discussion. Any editor can request closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure if they see fit. U-Mos (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And JG66 is correct to point out that I and others have neglected to restate their positions in this section - so for clarity's sake I support the change to DMY format. U-Mos (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @U-Mos: for the reply - did you look at the advice on the page you point to? It specifically advises against posting for a closure unless absolutely necessary, due to the time it will take, and advises: Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion...if consensus becomes clear before [the default 30 days] and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. However, editors usually wait at least a week after a discussion opens, unless the outcome is very obvious, so that there is enough time for a full discussion. This discussion meets this description precisely: it’s been over two weeks, the consensus from the contributions is overwhelming and backed by MOS:DATETIES, and contributions have slowed to a halt. MapReader (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Then close it, rather than wasting time telling other people to. U-Mos (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I saw it as politeness, and good editing, not to wind up without your involvement. Since you are happy, we can now wrap this up. We have comments above from fourteen separate editors: ten favour DMY, three MDY, and one is neutral. Seven raise points pertinent to the first bullet of DATETIES, relating to national ties, and four to the third bullet, relating to using the same date format as the series is using. For a small and series-specific issue this is a good response and a strong consensus, both in numbers and in policy. Thanks again to everyone. MapReader (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

MapReader, can you detail which way you ended the RFC per WP:RFCEND? Did you withdraw your question, or close it in an unacceptable manner? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

MapReader, do you intend to reply? In which manner did you close the RFC per WP:RFCEND? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Apols, my dog had an injury yesterday, and you are posting at the start of night for my timezone. Text from section 1 of RFCL is already above; you'll note that where consensus is "reasonably clear", anyone including an involved editor can close a discussion, but also that "formal" closures aren't a requirement. This discussion meets those criteria, and concerns a minor topic-specific change with no wiki-wide implications, which has been under discussion since 11 November - five weeks in total, including an RfC that ran for more than twice the recommended minimum and gone a full twelve days since the last new comment. 10:3 is more than reasonably clear. Most who follow the page and wanted to comment did so in November, and the involvement of 14 separate editors commenting on a point of detail was good. My proposal to wrap up the discussion was on the talk page for 48 hours and secured support (indeed, direction from) from the RfC initiator. I have summarised the discussion but have not placed close tags around it. We have had a good and almost entirely civil discussion, securing an overwhelming consensus and with relevant policies discussed. Anyone who came fresh to review the above would reach the same conclusion. Maybe it would help to put archive tags around it to underline that we are done? MapReader (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you point out where in RFCEND it states that an involved editor can close a discussion? A verbatim quote would go brilliantly. I can certainly see from #4 that an uninvolved editor can, unless you closed the discussion per #1, in which you withdrew your question without any need for change. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You have both the reference and the verbatim quote upthread. And you are on record as having made exactly that point in discussion on another talk page. I’d suggest stepping back a bit and remembering the big picture: we’re all here to improve the encyclopaedia, not to play games; it is now time to move on and get back to working on other articles. MapReader (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@MapReader: Where does your above quotation come from? I assumed it was something I had overlooked at WP:RFCEND, but a search on that page does not yield it. U-Mos (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It is WP:RFCL, which deals specifically and in detail with closures. Also note that Alex is misrepresenting RFCEND above, in respect of a withdrawal: the example given therein as to why an editor might withdraw an RfC is if consensus has quickly become clear; in such circumstances the consensus would simply be implemented and therefore withdrawing an RfC does not negate the discussion up to that point (which is common sense). WP has rules in order to regulate its processes, but not for a single editor to overturn a demonstrated consensus. We do now need to draw this discussion to a close. MapReader (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The opening editor does not get to determine consensus. If you cannot quote how you closed the RFC properly, it will be reopened until it is closed properly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Alex. This is yet another attempt by MapReader to control the discussion and be a consensus of one. For someone who demands compliance with policies you like at the level you do, you certainly seem to be unwilling to abide by the procedure for managing an RFC. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

New page for historical accuracy

Given that the historical accuracy section is by far the longest part of the page, it may be time to consider splitting some of it off to a new article. It seems odd that there is so little on the series' plot on this page, but we go in depth on its historical inaccuracy. -- Calidum 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It could simply be pared down. Many of the inaccuracies aren't particularly meaningful to this show versus any other historical drama and would probably belong more on an IMDB goofs page. Especially things like the dates of newsreel which is used as stock footage.Frobird (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)