Talk:The Foretelling
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
"Historical context"
[edit]As it seems that we're going to have an edit war otherwise, there is simply no reason to have a "historical context" section on a fictional television program article when said program is a) not aiming for accuracy, and b) is following an alternative history format in the first place. There is no historical context of value other than the setting of the program. Every character in the series is fictionalized, and the main character(s) never existed as they have been portrayed in the program. Therefore, to say that "so-and-so was the X in such-and-such a year" is trivial, because it has no bearing on the program, because that person does not appear in the program. I'd also venture so far as to call it WP:OR or WP:SYNTH, because nothing has ever been written about relating actual history to the Blackadder series saying "so-and-so was X in the year such-and-such, but was portrayed by so-and-so in Blackadder." For that reason, I have deleted the historical context section in all of the episode articles. MSJapan (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- No, there isn't going to be an edit war. It's just common courtesy to other editors to use cleanup tags and discuss things before going in and deleting big chunks of content with no discussion whatsoever. Drive-by deletions are rarely a popular strategy. Cnbrb (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as there doesn't appear to be an actual objection to my reasoning, I'm just going to go ahead and take the section out again. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well it looks like you're completely determined. I guess there's no stopping you, given that you waited all of 23 hours for further discussion, before reverting my reversion (did someone mention an edit war?). It's a pity you aren't prepared to engage with other editors or even familiarise yourself with the concept of consensus. I was about to make some points, but frankly I can't be bothered. It's a small article, there are few other editors interested, and in cases like this, deletionists always get their way. Good luck with your future endeavours. Cnbrb (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, I complied with you request for talk, and waited for your initial response. That response consisted entirely of an objection to process, not the content removal. Had you said something about the actual content, I would not have remade the edit, but you gave me on basis upon which to engage in a content discussion. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Normally on Wikipedia, these things are given a bit more time & consideration. You grudgingly posted a talk message, waited a few hours and then pressed on anyway. Not everybody on Wikipedia has the time or ability to spring into action to respond to your personal timescales, sorry. Your comments may have merit but, as I said, I can't be bothered arguing the toss over an insignificant bit of text.Cnbrb (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- In fact, I complied with you request for talk, and waited for your initial response. That response consisted entirely of an objection to process, not the content removal. Had you said something about the actual content, I would not have remade the edit, but you gave me on basis upon which to engage in a content discussion. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well it looks like you're completely determined. I guess there's no stopping you, given that you waited all of 23 hours for further discussion, before reverting my reversion (did someone mention an edit war?). It's a pity you aren't prepared to engage with other editors or even familiarise yourself with the concept of consensus. I was about to make some points, but frankly I can't be bothered. It's a small article, there are few other editors interested, and in cases like this, deletionists always get their way. Good luck with your future endeavours. Cnbrb (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as there doesn't appear to be an actual objection to my reasoning, I'm just going to go ahead and take the section out again. MSJapan (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
May I just add a challenge/correction please. Lord Percy Percy is the heir to the Duchy, not the Duke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.134.204 (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)