Talk:Fake or Fortune?

Short summary
, I reverted your addition of the latest ep's summary for two reasons: one, it appears to be copied from BBCs site and we should write summaries in our own words. Two, we should not tease, we should spoil. That is, provide a complete summary, including how the episode ended, including any twists and surprises.

If you feel my revert was in error, feel free to readd. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * By all means add what you consider a non-teasing summary. I would still suggest that Mergate Hall could have its own article - that's why I added those additionial sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I have now spoiled. Feel free to add some twists and turns. I did use many of the BBC's words, even the same punctuation marks, but not necessarily in the same order. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment on the Mergate thing: I am not opposed to linking Mergate Hall in any way shape or form. I understand if I gave you that impression because that was the specific edit I used as the basis for my revert. But no, that was simply because trying to revert the edit I really opposed gave "couldn't be done" and as far as I know there's no way to make a manual edit trigger the messaging system the way a "real" undo does. I simply did not want to risk having my revert appear as if I was trying to fly under the radar. I clicked undo on that particular edit simply because the system would let me post an edit that I knew would officially ring the bell over at your house. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries. Fully understood. Don't worry, I get used to them. Please add a little if you think it's justified. If we had known about the aluminium alloy at the start, we might have had a much shorter programme! lol Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I must say, that made for one of the weaker episodes. I can't remember any other episode where the suspense hinges on just postponing basic research for no better reason than otherwise they'd have nothing. Made me worried they'd hired a reality soap producer used to just make shit up, but the other two episodes broadcast thus far have thankfully been up to the usual standard. Even though they're clearly asking Fiona to amp up her gameshow host impression skills in later series. CapnZapp (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * She does like to gasp. And to read French, of course (not much call for that on BBC News at Ten, regrettably). I must say I was shocked by the conclusion of the Landseer. The photographic techniques expert and the slight kink in the bottom left of the canvas convinced me it was genuine. And all of the free brush strokes revealed by x-rays!! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was convinced that it was genuine, too, but the default position always seems to be that it's not genuine, and you have to prove beyond doubt that it is. Great series, though.  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  22:30, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Format paragraph
I removed the paragraph in the Format section that duplicated the reporting of the Line of Duty comparison from the Reception section as well as the Telegraph reference as I think it belongs in the latter more than in the former. There as an additional sentence about that review, but it felt unconnected to the main claim. Maybe it can be reconstructed... CapnZapp (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

viewership S8
As for S9, a recent edit comment provided a reasonable explanation: "Olympics and news swamped the listing".

But do anyone know/remember why S8 fell out of the top 15?

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

rejecting sources
When did we start rejecting sources just because data is ephemeral?

Instead expanding the source citation with a Wayback archive link appears more constructive.

Or have I missed something? CapnZapp (talk) 08:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)