Talk:Vikings season 5

Byzantine / HRE synth

I added an OR tag to the following line, which MapReader removed:

In "The Plan", Emperor Michael II is referred to as the Holy Roman Emperor rather than as the Byzantine Emperor.

My argument: "isnt this OR? none of the sources state this. likewise, the Byzantine Emperors were called Roman Emperors and anyone within the series logic could call an emperor holy if travelling within his domain. HRE did not even exist at the time imo"

MapReader's argument: "The first sentence is evidenced by the episode, the second by the citations in the linked WP article."

IMHO, this is original research by synthesising two separate accounts and implying that Sinric was referencing to the Holy Roman Emperors of Germany who won't even exist during the show's presumed timeline, whereas it is totally plausible he was talking abot a Roman Emperor of Constantinople he thought to be holy. Not to talk about how redundant a "Historical inaccuracy" section on Vikings is though... Opinions? Manelolo (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I have no skin in this game - I was simply removing a tag to a previous edit; the original editor refers to a clearly spoken sentence in the episode, which doesn't therefore need citation. The rest of his comment is fully evidenced in the linked article. I agree that the section doesn't add much to the article - IMHO it would be better to concentrate the comments about historical inaccuracy into the section of the main series article - indeed the inaccuracies could easily fill a whole article by themselves! Nevertheless the comments aren't OR - they are either fact, or not. The accompanying subtitles capitalise both Holy and Roman; capitalisation of Holy suggests that this is a, small, inaccuracy in the storyline. By the way, the sub-titles clearly spell the name the Viking character "Sindric", not "Sinric" - if you listen to Bjorn carefully the middle-'d' is clearly pronounced every time he refers to Sindric by name. I think Sinric is a mistake imported from iMDB, which WP does not treat as an authoritative source (certainly less so than the official subtitles), and I will edit the articles accordingly. MapReader (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't saying its unreferenced, I was saying its a composite of two sources to make up a statement that doesn't appear in the sources on its own (i.e. Sindric mistakenly referring to HRE), that is, WP:SYN. I'll add a synthesis tag to be clear and see what others say. PS. I actually by instinct wrote Sindric first, but then checked the cast list ... so you're most likely right. Manelolo (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

OK. The capitalisation of Holy coupled with the fact that it was a Viking saying it (who has no reason to call him small-h holy) is enough to establish that whoever wrote the script made the mistake, accidentally or deliberately, of referring to the 'Holy Roman Emperor' - which is after all what we now call it in retrospect. It's a similar mistake to the concept of "England" as a political/geographical entity - which didn't exist at that time yet has made its way into several seasons MapReader (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Most likely it is establishable as you said, but not by us, but by RS. Which is why I was a bit concerned about this synth. Otherwise we could fill a few articles with apparent mistakes spotted by fans without referring to RS. Re England, I am pretty certain it existed as a geographical concept at that time (but ofc in Old English)? After all, it just means Land of the Angles or Anglo-Saxons i.e. Angleterre? Cheerio! Manelolo (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The concept of 'uniting the kingdoms of England', as advanced in the series by Egbert, is nevertheless an anachronism for the period, the island being split amongst multiple kingdoms with a single entity being neither achievable nor something anyone was, to my knowledge, even dreaming of at the time. It was (*spoiler alert*) the defeat of kingdoms by the Vikings, and Alfred's later mix of peace-through-bribery and military resistance that is seen as the start of the idea of a single Anglo-Saxon kingdom, even then only ruling the parts that could be salvaged from the Danes. At school we leave with the impression that somehow the 'English' won through, yet the history of the 11th Century is first Cnut takes the throne as a Viking King of both Norway and England, then Rollo's french-ified Vikings(' decendants) pitch up in 1066 and English is only spoken by peasants for the next couple of centuries..... MapReader (talk) 02:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmmh, interesting. Had to start reading more deeply on the issue. Although I believe you are right on any grand-scale nationalistic concept of 'England' at the time, I think it's still plausible within a history drama to spin it a bit that some of the kings had solitary dreams of unification (i.e. one more ambitious goal after ruling a kingdom). For example, Æthelstan seems to have been a king of all Anglo-Saxons for a while in the 10th century. See also History_of_Anglo-Saxon_England#English_unification_(10th_century). But too offtopic so I'll stop now! Manelolo (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but those are events 100-150 years later than those we've been enjoying on tv; that was a long time, even back then ;) Alfred was a sort of turning point, as I expect we will see MapReader (talk) 08:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracy section, again

People, please use common sense and read a simple policy. You wouldn't add original research anywhere else, so why do it here? WP:FILMHIST states it so unambiguously that I do not grasp how this can be problematic:

Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, policy states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." In addition, Wikipedia's policy of "no original research" states about synthesizing, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." For films based on history or science, analysis should be introduced by reliable published secondary sources that compare the film with history or with science. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license.

Ergo, one does not add "screenplay goes like this" and "in history, it went like this" even if both might be a fact. One adds "according to critic A, event B in episode C was inaccurate". Manelolo (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we not cite or cross-reference the Wikipedia entry for Alfred the Great, which recites with great specificity and references the line of succession (i.e. deaths of his brothers) which led to Alfred taking the throne? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.195.105 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

No. See the block quote. Secondary sources are a requirement. -- Alex^TW 00:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The way in which Alfred gets the throne, skipping over his living brother and with no mention of the real-life other brothers who ruled before Alfred, is a major error in terms of the history, which has been remarked by various sources. Citing a reference is more constructive than arguing about policy here ;) MapReader (talk) 06:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Then those sources need to be included in the article alongside the content. If someone feels the need to cite policy here, then this indicates that there must be some disruption going on in the article itself. -- Alex^TW 16:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Renaming seasons & making proper episode lists.

Can we talk about seasons and episode numbers? "History Channel" and any TV/Web Networld worldwide cannot decide what is "season" and what is not. There are facts. The episodes that starting at 28th of November, should be named as the sixth season and the one that follows with 20 episodes (if there are 20 or 10, again) should be renamed as the seventh season. I propose to fix the formality of the entry on those three seasons and the episode list. Can I proceed? Problem is I don't speak English very well, so I might need of assistance. I communicate here for the first time and I hope, I'm doing this properly. CirithUngol (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources, including the History channel state that the following episodes starting on November 28 are part of Season 5. Your opinion on this is textbook WP:OR. -- Alex^TW 01:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

The network states it's the same season but my point is that in 70 years of television history that was never happened before (maybe a few cases in BBC) and of course, "seasons" are depending on the time period they distributed and not what a network dictates. They probably want to connect a bigger story, but they couldn't manage to do that last year (budget issues obviously) so they continue it in November, but that's a different time period! A different season, regardless what they say. I thought we try to record television history as encyclopedia here and we are not taking as granted talks of each producer when "baptizes" something to anything else.CirithUngol (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's never happened before. Network says it's the same season? Then it's the same season, end of discussion. Textbook WP:OR, get yourself up to date on WP:V and WP:RS - can you find a reliable source that states that it's officially Season 6? -- Alex^TW 08:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's never happened before in history but it all matters to blindly repeat about textbook in Wikipedia as an argument? Really? How about doing a harder task. Read more carefully and THINK! If network decides to "jump" two seasons and say it's 8th season, then an encyclopedia must record that it's 8th season! Right? That makes no sense at all and we have to use our brains sometimes and not blindly swallow what every channelarch or company dictates for it's own reasons. It's a different period and it shouldn't count as the same season. It's a different season for all networks and all others shows. I wonder if you have ever read the definition for seasons in Wikipedia. My source is the release dates of the same episodes. The rest are common sense. CirithUngol (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Luckily, Wikipedia is not run on common sense, it's run on reliable sources. You know, actual policy. Your source is your own opinion. Really, you're making a fool of yourself, go educate yourself before you continue. -- Alex^TW 11:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

As usually, there is always a smartass around that cannot even comprehend simple matters and without trying to do a healthy dialogue and providing arguments, resorts to insults if someone does not agree with him. As people say, "the grapes are sour". Well? What if "History Channel" chooses tomorrow that they call the next season as "8th" or "9th"? Your policy suggests that you have to accept that because the source named it like this? I already told you that my source is the release dates of the episodes that the same network provides. Not the "common sense". But these are fine prints for you to catch them and all you do is to be humiliated constantly. Is out there any other intelligent person in charge I can communicate with or did I go out with him here? CirithUngol (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That case isn't happening, and it's never going to. Release dates are just that, nothing else, no relation whatsoever to the season, other than your own view, which will never be implemented here. Go look up Haven or Breaking Bad. I can guarantee nobody else will agree with you, it's against Wikipedia policies. Nice try, though. Enjoy Season 5 in November! -- Alex^TW 13:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Besides other things you are a prophet too? Such an admirable personality you are! Here is a possible scenario: They involve a spin-off series for two seasons and after that series they decide to create a new season on "Vikings" naming it "9th", counting spin-off series as 2 seasons of the "same universe" (but not show). If a network "baptizes" seasons by the concept and not by the time period, they could do such a leap. What policies suggest if something like that occur? You're right though about "Haven" and "Breaking Bad", considering they must be changed too in one more season each. For each show, a specific time period of distribution defines its season and release dates of the episodes that constitute that same season, define the time frame of it. Not you, not even "History Channel" on his own shows can define what "season" is. Have you read terminology I gave you above of what Wikipedia defines as "seasons" or you will continue in the same ironic style by making cafe-level discussions? The episodes that start in November does not count either as ["mid-season"] with so many months gone by. They simply didn't have any schedule, they didn't announce released dates all those months (till very recently), they just decided to distribute those episodes now, before next season comes by. If our goal is to record television history properly, we ought to create lists and seasons with accurate data, by the definitions of Wikipedia of what "season" is, in a proper time frame. CirithUngol (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, you're calling me a prophet then saying "What if this happened? Rich. Haven and Breaking Bad will never be updated, because they are listed as the correct seasons, and are further proof that "this has never happened before" is wrong. If History Channel and I don't get to define what a season is, nor do you. You're beating a dead horse. Nothing's happening here, nothing every will, go focus your efforts elsewhere. Hope you enjoy Season 5! -- Alex^TW 01:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

The difference is that my scenario has a base. There are shows from other channels that did a similar thing as described, like "Spartacus: Blood And Sand" from "Starz", "The Blacklist" and others. Those networks, of course, didn't try to merge two seasons in one but "History Channel" does. Based on this knowledge and facts, I present you a plausible scenario asking you how are gonna use Wikipedia's policy if that occurs. You avoid sideways to answer, so it's obvious you don't have one. Even if no one understands the self-explanatory and doesn't bother if Wikipedia presents incorrect data, I will nevertheless enjoy my 6th season of 10 episodes! CirithUngol (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't have a base, and such a a case will not occur. Don't be a prophet. You can enjoy your Season 6 off-site, but here on Wikipedia, we'll enjoy Season 5, and then Season 6 at the end of next year. Are we done? -- Alex^TW 23:11, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

At first you have to learn how to stop repeating what other people say like a parrot. But that comes with the age and you're still young. So grow up "educated man" and we can talk again in another basis. Second, it's not "you", but "we", as I am feeder here too. I didn't dropped off from space coming here to discuss a matter. Third, I'm curious how you (yourself) can enjoy a TV show from Wikipedia. You mean "enjoying in typing"? However you repeat that and that's sad. People stuck in mind like you, non-thinkers and giving frivolous answers (or no answers at all using indirect speech) only damage can provide in a free encycopedia. Do whatever you like. That was, anyway, your goal from the beginning and not to sit down and wonder if there really is some ambiguity in what a network decides to call "TV season". You deliberately ignore Wikipedia's definitions of "season" and "mid-season" attempting to "pass" your non-existing arguments and it seems that no one in charge (if there is one after all) cares. I thought the mindset of those who feed in Wikipedia had been normalized after so many years, but it still seems to be a state of some people and if they don't bother, an unfenced vineyard. Nough said.CirithUngol (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. Still not being implemented. Thank you. Nough said. -- Alex^TW 12:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)