Jump to content

Talk:Robin Hood (2006 TV series)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Separate episode page

[edit]

Pretty much every TV series has an episode page, shouldn't we create a List of Robin Hood episodes?--Codenamecuckoo 07:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we should wait to see how successful the series was before creating extra pages for it. But if there's a consensus to remove the list to a separate page then I suppose that's what we should do. Personally, I'd wait until the first series has aired, at least. Angmering 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would also wait for the first series to finish, there are plenty of TV series which don't have separate episode pages, so I don't think there is any precendednt.--NeilEvans 20:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about waiting to see if a second series is comissioned? --MorneHeru 21:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episode cleanup

[edit]

The episode pages (Will You Tolerate This? and Sheriff Got Your Tongue?) need desperate cleanup. Any help? --Thelb4 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how they seem to be here to stay, I've done a little bit of work on these, some tidying on the second and adding reviews and ratings info to the first. Angmering 08:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image for ep 2... still needs more work. Where does the next title come from? Is there a press release of all the titles? --Thelb4 19:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I got the next title from the blog of its writer, Paul Cornell — I've no idea where the summary that the anon editor has added to the main page came from, though. Angmering 21:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The summary is from Sky Tv Guide.--NeilEvans 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it copied word-for-word? If so it needs to be rewritten to avoid breaching copyright. Angmering 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not copyrighted it's just what comes on when you press tv guide on the SKY remote.--NeilEvans 22:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... if that's not copyright material then I don't know what is, frankly! Angmering 06:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how it can be copyrighted.--NeilEvans 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright is owned by whichever company owns the Sky programme information guide. Sky themselves, I should imagine. Angmering 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters

[edit]

Should a new section be created for the characters?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 19:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a good idea, now we've seen most of them — I'll have a go at starting one. Angmering 22:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start on it, hopefully it's okay.Angmering 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great to me, but I've just made the characters so that they appear in the TOC as sub-headings.--NeilEvans 23:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marian: dead or not?

[edit]

I'm angling towards her being dead, as she is hovering between life and death for much of the episode (Djac even has to perform CPR to revive her), and the physician did say she was dead. BBC's Robin Hood minisite also alludes to Marian's death. Thoughts? Will (Because you're filthy, ooh, and I'm gorgeous)Merry Christmas! 02:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She LOOKS very dead, and in the preview clip on the BBC website, they're saying goodbye and all that, but...

I found the article from the BBC news archive about the second series, and it says that all 4 main characters are to return (that's Robin, Gisborne, the Sheriff and very definitely Marian). Their minisite seems to almost advertising her death - references to it are splashed everywhere. What conclusions do we draw from this? Personally I reckon (and hope) that she's in a coma from that stuff the physician made them put on her tongue and she'll come back to life and it'll all be fine again. It would be very cruel of them to kill her off! Rocket71048576 09:34, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Merry Christmas![reply]

SPOILERS: She's not dead. A BBC press release a week or so ago basically gave away the entire plot for the last two episodes. If I find it, I'll link it, but she's completely alive.
She could also be seen under a wedding veil in the BBC One "Christmas with the Devil" trailers, as I recall. Angmering 10:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found it! It's quite far down, but it's in there. Don't read unless you want like the entire last episode spoiled. I can't believe they released this before episode 12, they give the entire plot away for both the last two episodes except for the very end. [1]
Woohoo! I was very nearly right! Rocket71048576 14:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Order of Characters

[edit]

I've rearranged the characters into order of importance, which I think works better than before. If you disagree (or if there was a reason for the previous order which I've missed), leave a message for me on my talk page. Rocket71048576 09:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect loop

[edit]

Robin Hood (TV series), Robin Hood (BBC TV series) and Robin Hood (2006 TV series) are all redirecting to each other now. Which one are we keeping it at?--Codenamecuckoo 17:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've shifted it to Robin Hood (TV series) per the ongoing (new?) standard for naming on television series. It sounds like a number of folks were moving things and got wires crossed. My apologies if I screwed anything/anyone up in the process. --Mhking 17:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move Patstuarttalk|edits 00:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Hood (2006 TV series) → Robin Hood (TV series) — WP:NAME Mhking 13:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

[edit]
  1. Support - sorry that I botched the initial move; hopefully, this will rectify things properly. --Mhking 13:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - unless there are other seires by the BBC which have different dates.--NeilEvans 14:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - didn't really bother me before, but if it's more accurate now and fits in with everything else better, then it's fine by me! Rocket71048576 14:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - again unless there are other series' by the BBC with different dates. This series, after all, will be continued next year, which won't be 2006.TheologyJohn 15:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - The series has already been confirmed for a second season in 2007. It's not merely a 2006 series anymore. Bendono 01:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - Oppose votes

[edit]
  1. Oppose The 1953 Patrick Troughton series was just called Robin Hood and may well get an article some day as it is the first ever Robin Hood television adaptation. Also, I believe that the 1980s series Robin of Sherwood was known as Robin Hood in the USA. Angmering 15:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per Angmering. I'm not mad about the use of years to disambiguate TV series, but it seems to be the least bad solution, and there are precedents (for example, Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series) and Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Robin of Sherwood was indeed Robin Hood in the USA; there's the 1953 series and there are so many TV series about Robin Hood that the full titles of the others aren't enough to make one just called "Robin Hood" sufficiently unambiguous. Timrollpickering 01:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose, per Angmering and Timrollpickering. PC78 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per above. Vegaswikian 08:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose per Josiah Rowe. Kafziel Talk 19:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per above about other series. --Groggy Dice T|C 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose per the above. I don't think this particular series has any claim to be the Robin Hood series; if anything does, it's the Richard Greene version, but leaving the existing dab in place is the best solution, IMO. Tevildo 01:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, per Angmering and Timrollpickering. - Cyrus XIII 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:
Comment Other shows such as Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) which started in the year stated in their title are still running, but use the year they began to disambig them from other shows of the same name. Angmering 10:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other wikipedia articles are more specific than their title requires, but have a This article refers to... . For other uses, refer to blah disambiguation. Despite my comments on my support vote above, I don't actually see why the presence of another BBC TV show should prevent this one having that position, since this is by far the more likely to be what people are looking for, and it would make this one more accurate, and the other one could easily be named slightly differently.TheologyJohn 01:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about "Robin Hood (BBC TV series)"? Only one potential other bearer of that name, which lacks a wikipedia entry, and is nowhere near as notable or likely to be what someone is looking for? If a wikipedia entry were started, one could easily create a different page for that.TheologyJohn 23:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I actually just thought of that myself, TJohn. The first may or may not be preferable, but it looks destined to fail. I think I'll set up a new discussion for it. Patstuarttalk|edits 01:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey to move to Robin Hood (BBC TV series)

[edit]

Support

[edit]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Oppose A disambiguation tag should be unique, not ambiguous. There should be an article on the earlier series and having all the disambiguated articles using unique titles will be much better than entering into claim. Also technically this show is produced by Tiger Aspect Productions - currently in the info box "BBC" only appears as the channel(s). Timrollpickering 02:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per above, still ambiguous with Robin of Sherwood US name. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Robin of Sherwood wasn't a BBC programme, although in the US the distinction is often lost (many Americans assume that any British television export was made by the BBC). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose per Timrollpickering. So what happens when/if someone starts an article for the 1953 series? The current series isn't the only one made by the BBC (and there's another one too called The Legend of Robin Hood), but it is the only one to debut in 2006. PC78 07:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. I have yet to see anyone explain why "2006 TV series" is unacceptable. Neither move proposal has said why this should be moved at all. Is there a different 2006 TV series that is causing confusion here? If I'm missing something, please fill me in. Kafziel Talk 17:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose per Timrollpickering. - Cyrus XIII 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment: there are precedents for "ambiguous disambiguation" in the realm of television series: consider Lost (TV series), a title which is arguably ambiguous with the short-lived reality show Lost (2001 TV series). In the case of Lost, the argument was that within the context of "TV series named Lost", the current drama series is the primary topic. This case may be slightly less clear-cut than that one (since the 2001 reality series named Lost was cancelled after only a few episodes and had little impact — how much impact did the 1950s Robin Hood with Patrick Troughton have?), but a similar argument could be made. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's really more fundamental than that. With "Lost", the confusion/ambiguity is between TV series actually called "Lost". With this topic, the ambiguity is between TV series about Robin Hood. It's true that there have only been two series called "Robin Hood" (this one, and Patrick Troughton), but I think it's unreasonable to assume that someone linking to "Robin Hood (TV series)" isn't going to be interested in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" or "Robin of Sherwood". Tevildo 08:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Criticism

[edit]

This article needs a criticism section. Because it's the biggest load of shite I've ever had the misfortune to watch. After Richard & Judy, obviously.

For example, CPR (as mentioned above) blonde highlights, french manicures, modern tailored clothing etc. all serve to ruin any sort of realism. 86.150.211.165 23:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to add some of the criticism that appeared when the show started to the reaction section. I'll try and get around to it soon. Angmering 07:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I know what you mean, she was sniping people with her heavy crossbow and suchlike, dressing like a ninja. I am pretty sure she used a smoke bomb and some throwing stars as well. Supersonicjim 02:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I too think there should be a criticism section. I was overwhelmed at how poor this show was. The dreadful dialogue, the hammy acting, the makeup and Toni&Guy haircuts. The over-elaborate unecessary post-production effects and the handling of the relationships particularly Robin Hood opposite the Sheriff of Nottingham. Then again, if the show did well, as the figures show, then a criticism section might be purely subjective. The show, like Dr.Who is targetted at a very young audience. Bobbyfletch85 20:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a note could be added to the section on anachronisms to point out that they're (mostly) deliberate - it's not a period drama and nobody is checking too closely for authenticity. The idea is that it's a modern reworking of the story, and you don't have to watch it hard to know it's not meant to be taken too seriously. For example, in episode 7 of the new series, the Sheriff makes a joke about "The answer, my friends is blowing in the wind"... do you really think they forgot that Bob Dylan wasn't around in the 12th Century? ~~Owen~~ 21:00, 24th November 2007 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.245.109.240 (talk)

yeah, and I think that they should be allowed to take creative licence if it makes the show more enjoyable. 81.98.227.10 (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any basis for the criticism section other than some Wikipedians' dislike of the show? It seems rather foolish to treat the Knight's Tale-esque intentional anachronisms as flaws, especially without reference to any authority that does so. The section, if kept, would make more sense if labelled "Style" or something similar. The examples given, however, are very arbitrarily selected; some are very minor points compared to other more obvious and interesting modern references, of which there are many in every episode.--Trystan (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

does anyone know any good review sites, I can find plenty of bad reviews, but they are not from professional critics. all the reviews in newspapers and such have been short and strangely positive, and suggest the reviewer watched just the pilot. 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may also be worth mentioning that it was (derisively) referred to as "Robin Hoodie". I seem to remember it being bandied about a lot more than a quick google search some years later suggests. But that nickname was used right from the outset, as this Daily Telegraph article attests. (For those not from the UK, it's worth pointing out that a Hoodie is the name often given to young people who wear these garments and are perceived as thugs.) -- 90.195.45.235 (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Political Commentary

[edit]

Should this article have a section discussing the political commentary peppered through the episodes? For instance, the Sherrif describes his hunt for Robin as a "war on terror", Guy and Marian have an argument in the second episode because Guy and the Sherrif are refusing Robin a trial, saying he is an outlaw and thus an enemy, and since their at war they don't have to give enemies trials. Robin at one point quotes the Quoran, ect. I've only watched up to the fifth episode, but I'm sure there are more.--Pyritefoolsgold 02:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable published sources that discuss it, then certainly it can be mentioned, but it can't be added as our own observation. Angmering 11:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found a review that mentions it by the BBC here. [[2]] Would that be admissible? I'm honestly not incredibly familiar with the procedure here.--67.110.198.78 07:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's certainly a reliable source. You could add a bit to the reception section perhaps along the lines of "It has been observed that the series' storylines often act as a political commentary on events in 21st century, such as the war on terror and 2003 invasion of Iraq." And then cite that article. Something like that anyway. Angmering 10:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

(longbows did not arrive until just before the Hundred Years War)

I'd love to know from what source this comment was drawn. The linked page on longbows clearly states that longbows are one of the simplest designs for a bow, and have been used for "hundreds or thousands of years". I've certainly never seen anything that indicates the English style longbow was developed during the middle ages. They may have upped the poundage a bit, but that's a manufacturing decision, not a design decision. Myk 00:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I believe that's one of the classic anachronisms of the Robin Hood legend. The tales take place during the era of King Richard the Lionhearted which places things in the 1190's AD. The English Longbow does not become popular for almost another century around 1250+ AD. Some authors will dance around this by stating that bows had been around for centuries and while the longbow does not become popular for another century, it does not mean that longbows did not exist and Robin might have had an early longbow before they became mainstream. In the show, Robin uses a Saracen bow, not even the traditional English Longbow. This is all moot since the series is not striving for historical accuracy. RepSchnell (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err they have found longbows dating back at least to the darkages - the rational for Robin using a horse bow when he vary rarly rides a horse is a little wonky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjwalshe (talk • contribs) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the longbow is that it was originally welsh, in fact there is a new theory, that robin hood was not a historical character, but originally a character from welsh folklore. anyway, trivia sections are not encouraged, and it should be noted that Robin Hood uses a re-curve bow and a scimitar 67.176.160.47 (talk) 04:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New arrivals

[edit]

FYI: Episode lists have been started by Dias cool:

  1. Robin Hood (season 1)‎
  2. Robin Hood (season 2)
  3. Robin Hood Series 3
  4. Series Three‎

Note that Series Three‎ came into being after I proposed Robin Hood Series 3 for deletion. If the article needs a separate episode list, then it ought to be discussed. And even if so, a list per series when only one series plus an episode have been broadcast seems more than necessary. --Scathlock 21:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More new arrivals

[edit]

For some reason I can't quite fathom,* we've ended up with two versions of the same article

The Booby and the Beast & The Booby And The Beast

I'm about to merge the latter into the former, but people might want to check the article histories to see if I've missed anything.

And in future, people, be a bit more vigilant about this sort of thing. --Old Raw 09:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Courtesy of the ever productive Dias cool,surprise-surprise.

Episode page plot descriptions

[edit]

I'm seeing a lot of episode pages where the plot summaries are being directly copypasted from the official website. Can we start work on writing original summaries? It takes ages to find a free username 16:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just a 2006 series

[edit]

The title of this page should be changed. This TV Show did not just run in 2006 - it has become a long-term drama, as series 2 ran in 2007 and series 3 is due to run during 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.193.138 (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TV-NAME sets out the naming convention. The year refers to the debut, purely to distinguish it from earlier Robin Hood series. The use of "series" implies the American rather than the British meaning, but that would have to be discussed as a change to the guideline.--Trystan (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's no conflict: "series" is used in the UK to refer both to the entire show and to the individual yearly runs. Angmering (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Season 3

[edit]

I've removed this part:

As of 14th January, the scripts are currently being written and filming starts late Spring 2008. Tiger Aspect confirmed that Lucy Griffths had left the show to 'pursue other projects', while they declinded to comment if Will and Djaq would appear.

...until we can find a citation for it, which I have been unable to do so far.

On a related noted, when we have a cited source that Lucy Griffiths has left the show, she will not be removed from the cast list, as a couple of IPs seem intent on doing. Rather, we'll put (2006-2007) behind her name, since the article is about the entire programme, not just the latest series. The same goes for Harry Lloyd and Anjali Jay, when we get confirmation one way or the other on their status.--Trystan (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

[edit]

Why isn't this at Robin Hood (BBC TV series)? I was under the impression that years were only used when the more obvious name was not specific enough. I.E. only if there were two BBC series named Robin Hood, would we need to use the year. —MJBurrage(T•C) 05:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was proposed above, in the Requested Move section.--Trystan (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finale/Wimbledon clash in 2009

[edit]

The last episode that got moved to BBC2 was due to an Andy Murray match, not Roddick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.8.130 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, a moment of madness on my part that. Thanks for pointing it out (although you could have changed it yourself). U-Mos (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Fates" of Isabella, Sheriff

[edit]

The series is over and most of the fan sites agree that they are dead. It seems rather implausible - even by Robin Hood standard - that they'd escape a collapsed castle. Particularly with the series over for good, I don't see how they can be listed as "fates uncertain." Niremetal (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! It's ludicrous to continue the cliffhanger and assume they might survive, particularly given that the BBC and show execs described them as dead in the media coverage that followed the show's cancellation. The whole point of the way that ending was done was to cover both contingencies: were the show to end, then we've obviously killed the baddies in the explosion. Only if the show were to have been commissioned for a fourth series could you make a case that their fate remains uncertain. Drmargi (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These BBC sources: please link to them. If they exist, then of course they can be sourced as DEAD. But if not, there is nothing we can say either way. Of course it's not right to say they're alive, but we didn't actually see them die. Therefore it is speculation to label them as "dead". Fair enough, "uncertain fates" could be worded better. But we cannpt go any further than to say they are inside the castle as it collapses. U-Mos (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has now gotten utterly ridiculous. There is a source, and a darned good one that specifically says the Sheriff is dead. The last time we saw he and Isabella, they were in the same place and we saw nothing to suggest they were sufficiently apart or in the right position for either one or both to get out alive. I would argue the evidence suggests they are dead, and any other position is entirely WP:POV. Given what we saw, the simplest, and most obvious interpretation is that they are both dead, period. You can contort the possibilities to fit the cliffhanger explanation that they might have gotten out, but given the show is over and the producers' knowledge that its fate was in question, Occam's Razor applies: they are dead. Drmargi (talk) 11:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; this is getting ridiculous. Firstly, we do not have a good source saying they're dead. We have a report on the show's cancellation, which briefly mentions that Robin "killed" the sheriff. That's it. That's no reason to go down the unnecessary road of literally stating that they are dead. Especially as the section in question is just a character overview. They are in the castle as it is destroyed. Fact. People may read that and assume they are dead. That was the idea, of the programme and the sentence. It is pointless to go further. Not using the word "dead" does not amount to suggesting they are alive, and therefore is not speculation. In fact, it is speculation to say they are dead on the grounds that it would be hard to escape from a collapsing castle. It didn't actually happen, you know? The only type of source that would be any good would be something straight from the horse's mouth, ie someone who worked on the show specifying that they were never going to return, with or without a series 4. As far as I'm aware, there is no such source. I hope that we can agree to leave the article not specifying dead or alive whilst this discussion is ongoing, as I doubt either of us wish to be caught up in an edit war. U-Mos (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to form at start of discussion? I don't know where you're getting that from. Nevertheless, I won't revert it back for fear of trouble (as unconstructive as your reversion was) but please can you respond to my points above and explain why you feel they don't apply. U-Mos (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the version I supported due to the lack of response, despite even posting a message on Drmargi's talk page in an effort to resolve this. U-Mos (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware I was to reply according to your prescribed timeline. Next time be sure to advise me of the time limit, so I won't take the time to think about your comments before replying. I'd have been appreciative had someone taken the time to rethink the situation and my arguments before replying, but that's me. Drmargi (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did nothing of the sort; you showed no signs of response after over a day, so I took further action. No need for any of that. U-Mos (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your arguments are singularly unconvincing. The scenes involved seem very clear to me. The Sheriff and Isabella are in the castle, the castle good boom with no evidence they've gotten out, and series ends - they're dead. Robin and the merry men have the upper hand and win the day, just as they always have. It fits what we saw, it's the simplest explanation, there's a reference to support it (however much you want to recast what it is) and it's consistent with the storytelling of three seasons.
What you're offering is a theory all your own that is unsupported. The so-called neutral version is really an attempt to leave the question of their survival open and further your interpretation of events based on I'm not sure what - the WP:OR notion that we might have seen them again had the series been recomissioned, perhaps. Regardless, you have nothing but speculation to support it. I think the real issue here is you don't want to have your own work edited, if your honest with yourself. All the frantic energy to find a supportive voice certainly would suggest as much. Drmargi (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actually didn't see this response until just now. Nicely hidden. In short, your first paragraph relies totally on an in-universe analysis so is worth nothing. We don't need to, no, we CAN'T explain or analyse anything. Say what you see; that is it. And as such, I'm not offering any "theory". None at all. That's exactly the point. My version does not, despite what you appear to belive, imply that said characters are alive. No speculation. Speculation = saying they are dead. Frantic energy? I'm not the one immediately reverting any change, no matter the rather indisputable reasoning behind it. Not wanting to have my work edited? Have I reverted any of the other changes you made? No, just this one, because it cannot be. U-Mos (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't hide anything. I replied where the reply fit, and if your were faulty in your scanning of the discussion or failed to check the edit history, it's not my fault. You might want to take a wee tour back through the edits of recent weeks and see how many of mine you have, in actuality, reverted, and in very short order. There are a fair number, and done in order to cling to your phrasing, not matter how wordy and awkward it might be. Bottom line: we wouldn't be where we are now if you were open to the edits of others. I detest the notion of ownership of an article, but in your case, if the shoe fits. Given your rather colorful history of edit wars, I'd be very careful of pointing the fingers at others. You won your petty victory, whatever that might be, or did you, if the two phrases mean the same thing? (Love to see a semantics expert have at it.) Enjoy it. It's no skin off my nose. Drmargi (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two phrases mean the same thing, practically; most readings of "are caught in the explosion" and "die in the explosion" will end up in the same place. So, stop reverting over it, or I'll block both of you for edit waring. lifebaka++ 19:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

announcements and confirmations?

[edit]

do we really need to know every time something was announced and then confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Robin Hood (2006 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robin Hood (2006 TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robin_Hood_(2006_TV_series)&oldid=1251287271"