Talk:Bridgerton/Archive 1

Archive 1

British or American?

The top of this article states that Bridgerton is a British series, meanwhile the production company (Shondaland) is American. The templates state to Use British English and MDY dates – a complete contradiction, since Britain uses DMY dates. So what is going on? – DarkGlow (✉) 13:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. American books, American series creator, American production company, American platform. There isn't even a UK co-producer, so there's no way it's "British." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Unquestionably American. The cast is largely British, yes, and the locations are as well. But everything on the production end, which determines country of origin is American. it's not even a co-pruduction like The Crown. i've corrected accordingly, for the most part. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I am pretty sure, it is an American TV series because the creator and the production company are American. Not only that, Netflix did not even listed as a "British" under the genres section like the The Crown did. It is not even a co-production with the United Kingdom. — YoungForever^(talk) 02:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Cast section

Per MOS:TVCAST, The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits. The only divisions usually entail sections for main cast members (listed in opening credits), recurring cast members (not main but appearing in more than three episodes), and guest cast members (notable cast/characters who appear in three or less episodes). The current layout of the list by family is unconventional, and does not add an increased understanding of the characters. Please comment here, I will leave some time before I make changes to the list. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 23:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I agreed, The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits., specifically in the order: main, recurring, and the guest stars. — YoungForever^(talk) 06:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And yet, with three dozen characters listed, additional structure seems needed. I've added an abbreviated list to the introductory section, to help newbies especially. Mebden (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur, given the complexity of the character structure. Per WP:IAR, the clustered arrangement is acceptable to improve the article, which it would decidedly do. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 00:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Music titles

The series features modern pop songs such as "Bad Guy" by Billie Eilish in Empire style. Is someone musical enough to identify the titles?--BerBoWPe (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

[1] --Blobstar (talk) 13:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

More information

The section needs to be expanded because it’s no much. Besides the series was seen by 63 million of people. Now as one of the most popular Netflix shows, the series needs more information because currently there is no much information in the page. Alvrix3104 (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Black aristocrats in Regency England

Is that not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.55.99 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's historically incorrect. Interestingly, people of color were given aristocratic status in Regency Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.224.108 (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it is notable to mention in the article. The show has gotten a lot of press for having a diverse cast as a period piece, which often have all-white casts. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes there are enough reliables sources that discuss this to create a paragraph on the topic. And of course it isn't historically accurate, though some historians believe that Queen Charlotte did have Black ancestry.— TAnthony^Talk 17:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Alternate reality

is it not done in effect as almost an alternative reality, such as exemplified by the comment by Marina about how the Queen had changed the social dynamic between races...which clearly in reality didnt happen like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.197.114.3 (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

The alternative history angle is handled up front.Fleets (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

perhaps it does deserve a proper mention, perhaps cultural impact etc as it seems to being attacked for being an alternative historical version of a few hundred years ago.Fleets (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Historical inaccuracies questioned, does this get blended into one section on its own?Fleets (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from forcing the genre into the article until you have a source and consensus. Bear in mind that this is an American show. Alternative history is not an expression we use in American English, nor is it a genre we use. Moreover, you lack a source for your use of the genre. Until/unless you can gain consensus and find an American English source that identifies the genre, it is entirely WP:POV and does not belong on the article. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Sourced. Changed to alternate to fit American-English.Fleets (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Where's your consensus? Your sources address historical accracy, which is common in historical dramas None support the genre label. STOP edit warring! ----Dr.Margi ✉ 23:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Bridgerton is not alternative history, it is Color-blind casting. There is no indication that the history of the world is significantly different (unless I've missed something), this is just a world in which British nobility can occasionally be black. There are plenty of Shakespeare movies (and hundreds of theater performances) that use the same conceit, for example Much Ado About Nothing (1993 film) to name just one. Troy: Fall of a City is another example: a BBC production of The Iliad in which Achilles and others are played by black actors, without any indication that the history of Greece was significantly different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:E107:B706:4A6:D960:BDDB:EA65 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been thinking that, too. It would be very much in keeping with Shondaland's other productions. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 05:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The lack of agency in fact versus the one afforded in this series categorically pushes it in the realm of alternate or alternative. Being so divorced from reality, it loses any claims of such.Fleets (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Regency Romance as a lead as that removes all links to historical accuracy. Compromise?Fleets (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The creater himself says it is alternative history, one "in which Queen Charlotte’s mixed race heritage was not only well-established but was transformative for Black people and other people of color in England. “It made me wonder what that could have looked like,” he said. “Could she have used her power to elevate other people of color in society? Could she have given them titles and lands and dukedoms?” When Netflix began releasing news about “Bridgerton” and its cast, many referred to the approach as colorblind casting, which was irksome to the creators. “That would imply that color and race were never considered,” Van Dusen said, “when color and race are part of the show.”" https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/arts/television/bridgerton-netflix-shonda-rhimes.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.38.14 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you highlight for me where in that quote the words "alternate history' are? I keep reading but missing them. --Blobstar (talk) 11:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is the full quote: "Van Dusen’s idea was to base the show in an alternative history in which Queen Charlotte’s mixed race heritage was not only well-established but was transformative for Black people and other people of color in England.

“It made me wonder what that could have looked like,” he said. “Could she have used her power to elevate other people of color in society? Could she have given them titles and lands and dukedoms?”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.158.38.14 (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

The upper part is the interpretation by the columnist, it's not something CVD himself said. --Blobstar (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Likely indirect speech. But it also does not matter. A reputable source calls it alternative history, so that should be mentioned. What else do you need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.81.177.194 (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Are two sources from the NY Times acceptable?Fleets (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Another for historical accuracy

Why the casting of an Indian British lead in 'Bridgerton' is historically accurate Article by NBC News about season 2 role Kate Sharma and the accuracy of an Indian British woman entering British aristocracy in the time period --Blobstar (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Characters page

If anyone would like to contribute to or help build Draft:List of Bridgerton characters, it is there. – Starklinson 10:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Filming section

I was thinking, would it be a good idea to make the filming section more compact, or is it good as is? – Starklinson 03:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Starklinson: I'm late but I'd support that. It currently looks like a stubby little collection of sentences, many of which aren't sourced. – DarkGlow • 18:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@DarkGlow: I've altered it a bit for now, it can be reversed or further tinkered. I loosely modeled it after the Game of Throne#Filming section since that also deals with a lot of locations. – Starklinson 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Revision regarding viewership statistics and Squid Game

Hi Drmargi; wanted to bring up revision regarding Squid Game; I don't see how viewership statistics don't matter. I firmly believe that its second place spot should at least be mentioned. Traditionally, other articles have used this tactic; Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport lists it was the busiest airport until Guangzhou was busier, James Holzhauer lists he's second to Jennings in most of his Jeopardy! records, Taipei 101 lists it was the tallest building in the world until the Burj Khalifa was built, and so on. I don't see why it's unnecessary to touch that Bridgerton was the most watched series until Squid Game came along. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Viewer statistics are highly fluid and are seldom kept up-to-date. This also seems to be an opportunity to discuss The Squid Game eather than Brigerton. The statement that it was #1 at premiere remains fixed and doesnt require updating that rarely gets done. The important point is that it premiered at #1. BTW, it's only been removed from the lede, which is concise. It's still in the audience section. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it would be best to phrase it as "the most watched Netflix series by total views from its premiere until October 2021", without needing to mention Squid Game. I don't see it as an excuse to talk about Squid Game; I don't even watch the series. InvadingInvader (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Drmargi, regarding the recent revert, not everything has to only be remain in its own section. I'm trying to reach a middle ground with the edit that notices the current state of Bridgerton. I understand that you don't want to mention Squid Game, but it's necessary to at least state where Bridgerton is now. Plus, many other articles on Wikipedia do the exact same thing I'm trying to do to a greater extent:

• The article for China states that it borders the second most number of countries in the world, after Russia
• The article for The Today Show notes that for some time it was overtaken in ratings by and many times following second or surpassing Good Morning America
• The article for Nintendo DS states it's the second highest selling video game console of any type of all time, second to the PlayStation 2
• Microsoft Bing's article notes it's in third place and mentions the two search engines it trails behind, Google and Baidu.
• Fin whales are the second largest species of whale, after the blue whale. This exact information (although paraphrased) is in the first paragraph of the article.
• So many more

Again, what I'm trying to accomplish isn't to necessarily override the purpose of the "Broadcast" section but insert famous and essential statistics regarding the viewership of the show into the lead. It doesn't have to mention that it was surpassed by Squid Game in the lead, but a vast majority of these articles show it. At the very least, it's essential to note that it was the most viewed show for a series of time. InvadingInvader (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Drmargi ??? InvadingInvader (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2021 and 30 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylieohlson. Peer reviewers: KatyTravers, Kcaskey101, Alexisanderson89.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Error in family tree

Sorry my skills are not up to editing it myself:

The family tree shows Kate as the biological daughter of Mr & Mary Sharma, and Edwina as the daughter from his first marriage. It should be the other way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.159.97.26 (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Alternate history or Regency era?

Is this set in the Regency era or is it alternate history ? It can't be both. A fantasy alternate history can have Regency elements, but something either claims to be rooted in an era (including its mores and manners and customs) or it doesn't. Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Uh yes, it can be exactly both, set in what's generally the Regency era but alternated in specific history elements that change things but don't lead to it not being like the Regency era at all. Blobstar (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Martins Imhangbe

is main cast even for season one too. His name doesn't appear during the tree intro in the first episode because he's not in that episode. But for the other episodes which don't show the full tree intro, the names of the main cast appear listed in the end credits, in these episodes where his character appears, his name is listed among the other main cast, already in season one. He's distinctly not listed in the supporting section where the names of Madsen or Drysdale for example appear. Blobstar (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Bridgerton cast attend the "Bridgerton" Series 2 World Premiere at Tate Modern on March 22, 2022 in London, England.png
• Jonathan Bailey as Anthony Bridgerton dancing with Simone Ashley as Kate Sharma.png
• Wrotham Park stands in as Aubrey Hall in Bridgerton.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Cast List

I propose separate division for the members of the eponymous Bridgerton family for clarity. At present, user Dmargi has been reverting these edits to follow MOS on cast list. But I argue that a simple alphabetical arrangement on a large ensemble cast is a disservice to the readers, especially when the focus of the story is obviously on the Bridgerton family members. It just does not make sense, style-wise, to let the protagonists of the show scattered and buried in the section. Maxen Embry (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I've not seen that done in any other TV series, even those with large ensemble casts. MOS:TVCAST and general practice is just to split characters/cast into Main, Guest and Recurring sections and grouping them by family would prevent that from being readily possible. Also remember not all cast members and characters should be represented in a cast/character list, it's generally recommended only those that pass WP:FICTION should be put into the cast, and those that are generally listed in the main opening credits. Also remember that main cast should be listed by first appearance in main opening credits, not in another order. Canterbury Tail talk 21:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I guess the best solution is a family tree. I saw one done with Downton Abbey. Just don't know who can help with that. Maxen Embry (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

TV articles are really not my forte, so I can't help, but I might suggest that you could ask on Talk:Downton Abbey and see if anyone can assist - worth a try!

Also, thanks for engaging in the discussion - this is how articles get better, by editors working together and finding solutions. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't entirely disagree with grouping the cast list by family, but the problem is MOS gives us little flexibility, and the scope of the family can become an issue. For example, you excluded the Duke from the Bridgerton family, but having married Phoebe, he is a family member. As soon as subjective judgments like this come into play, we've got arguments and edit wars. Frankly, I question the treatment of the younger children as main cast, but all we can go on is billing. BTW, please discuss the issue, not the editor. I madwe a single revert, but rather than discuss, you put your edit back in place. That only starts edit wars.----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bridgerton/Archive 1#Cast section. MOS:TVCAST exists so that editors to not edit war over cast order based on personal preferences. A family tree can be added when there is a List of Bridgerton characters article. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to use this language: "Simone Ashley as Kathani, Viscountess Bridgerton (née Sharma) (season 2)" - this is a 'spoiler' as we don't find out that she marries the Viscount until the very last episode of season 2. Had I read this before seeing the final episode, I would have been very angry. It would be fine to describe her as simply 'Kathani Sharma'. UPDATE - I just read the Wikipedia policy on spoilers, and see that there has been a move away from spoiler alerts, and worrying about spoilers in general. However - in this case, I think there is no justification for referring to Simone Ashley's character as 'Viscountess Bridgerton' since she only marries at the very end of the final episode; she is 'Kate Sharma' for almost the entirety of the show.

The ton

The article says that the story takes place within the "ton". The word "ton" is then linked to another wikipedia page that discusses this term. That wikipedia page is marked as problematic, and I sympathize with this. Having read a great deal of Regency literature (not just Jane Austen) I don't recall ever coming across this term. I did some research to see if I had missed it, and I haven't. The word "ton" does appear, but only very rarely, and not in the sense used here. I suggest it should be removed. There are unfortunately plenty of online usages of the term but they all stem back to either Bridgerton or another author who seems to have made an honest mistake. --Birnt Hardnut (talk) 10:18, 22 April 2022 (UTC)