Talk:Fake or Fortune?/Archive 1

rival show dispute
Here's an alternative link to the Times paywall reference, should we wish to bring up the subject: https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2016/fake-or-fortune-presenters-in-dispute-over-new-bbc-show/ CapnZapp (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fake or Fortune?. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131230234742/http://www.svt.se/konstdeckarna/se-program/del-1-1506 to http://www.svt.se/konstdeckarna/se-program/del-1-1506

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Works. But it is in Swedish? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Most popular
I have modified the lead statement sentence that said;

"Since the first series aired in 2011, Fake or Fortune? has become the most popular arts show on television, regularly drawing audiences of 5 million viewers in the UK."

For the following reasons;


 * "the most popular arts show on television" - this is a very bold statement. How could anyone prove this?  In all television, everywhere?
 * The source cited doesn't say "the most popular arts show on television", it says "television's most popular arts show", which is subtly quite different. For a start, it is vague, "television" doesn't have favourites.  Secondly, it's is almost certainly referring to UK audiences only, since it is backed up by viewing figures for the UK.
 * What makes a show "arts"? What other shows are we comparing the show against?

I think, therefore, the above sentence gave a misleading impression and over stated things with a wedge of opinion. I think my replacement, below, is more neutral and factual, as befits the lead of an article. I also, in the course of doing this, updated the source URL. It's still paywalled, by a better cite. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You are entirely correct we can't back up a claim it's the most popular arts show of all time worldwide. What we can do, however, is use that "television's most popular arts show" claim to put that 5M figure into context, especially for readers unfamiliar with the size of the UK television market. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. The lead looks a much better reflection of hard facts now. Thanks.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:59, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fake or Fortune?. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226122859/http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/r89jy/fake-or-fortune--series-2---2-turner-a-miscarriage-of-justice to http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/r89jy/fake-or-fortune--series-2---2-turner-a-miscarriage-of-justice
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.svt.se/konstdeckarna/se-program/del-1-1506
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131231001220/http://www.svtplay.se/video/1701145/del-2-av-3 to http://www.svtplay.se/video/1701145/del-2-av-3

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Giacometti
Apparently the Giacometti episode that was supposed to be for Series 6 will be shown as part of the current (7th) series (according to the show's BBC website). How should this be stated in the article – by moving Giacometti from the sixth series to the seventh, or making a separate bit for the series 7 episode and just stating "the episode was aired as part of the seventh series" on the series 6 bit? 101090ABC (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd favour the latter. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Air date trumps everything in TV articles. It's going to be aired as part of Series 7, then it's a Series 7 episode. Move it from Series 6 to Series 7 and add a note to the episode that it was going to be part of Series 6 but was moved to Series 7. - X201 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * When they say "This season will be the first time the show has featured sculptures" that's a rehash of what they said about last series. As for the question, add my vote for presenting the ep as a S7 ep, with a small note about the original plans. There's no need for a mention under S6. CapnZapp (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

As you can see, we ended up making a mention under the season 6 summary, but with no invididual entry for the episode in that season. Thus, this episode only gets one entry, just like all the rest, while the season six subsection still informs the reader the season was shorter than planned. CapnZapp (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Works featured in series n"
The previous phrasing suggests a complete list, which is only the case for season 1, where it was introduced. Using it for subsequent seasons is thus misleading. Changing to "Selected works featured in series n". That our selection criteria probably is as prosaic as "which works do we have frely licensed images of?" is neither here nor there. CapnZapp (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No objections. It's not wrong, but that adjustment would be better. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

summaries vary widely in length and quality
Episode summaries vary widely in length and quality. We should flesh out the bare-bones summaries of the first few series, while paring down the ones for later series. Per MOS:TVPLOT, episode summaries should be kept to 100–200 words when presented as episode tables, as we have done here.

Mentioning this (together with a cleanup template) to alert all editors. Best regards, and I look forward to seeing your efforts. CapnZapp (talk) 11:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm genuinely surprised that a single limit figure of 100-200 is deemed suitable for all television programme regardless of content. I'm struggling to see where material could be usefully be cut from the later episodes. I fully agree that the earlier ones should be improved. All episodes, from all series, seem to be still available via the BBC programme website, although I don't think this is accessible outside UK. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Then might I suggest you focus on fleshing out the early eps? You can always leave the policy pruning to others - noone says you need to actively enforce policies you don't agree with. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You certainly might. I was suggesting policy should change. But thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Let it be clear that I am not standing in your way. As long as we're agreed on one tiny fact: this here talk page is not where you institute policy change :-) Good luck CapnZapp (talk) 09:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're very clear. You're not standing in my way. I'd never suggest that it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just attempting friendly banter, that's all. I see you're not in the mood, so I'll stop. CapnZapp (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. Your friendliness is much appreciated. I'm sorry if I sounded a little frosty. Just making my position clear :) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Reminding everyone of the policy: some of our summaries are simply too long. Please don't reflexively revert forthcoming shortening work. After all, appropriately shortening episode summaries is painstaking work that often means rewatching the episode in question to boil down the essence of the episode. Doing all that work only to be immediately reverted is disheartening, so please consider making further edits (=constructive) rather than wholesale reversion (=unconstructive). An argument such as "Philip's discoveries here is more central to the episode than Fiona's interview there" is relevant and appreciated. An argument such as "you can't cut out the part where they visit Madam X!" is not. You need to argue what else we should cut instead, since keeping it all is impossible within a 200 word limit. Here are the relevant sections of WP:TVPLOT:

For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode (the alternative - not used here - being a prose plot summary of no more than 500 words per season. Do note but an article should not have both an episode table and a prose summary). If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes, the word count stays the same: Individual season articles should use either episode tables with no more than 200 words per episode (or or a prose summary of no more than 500 words, not both).

Only if individual episode article can be motivated can the 200 word limit be lifted: Episode articles should have a prose plot summary of no more than 400 words. However, it is unlikely we can justify individual articles for Fake or Fortune episodes - the notability of highly appraised episodes of Friends, say, or Seinfeld, simply isn't there. So 200 words it is. If you disagree with any of this, please read WP:GUIDANCE. Specifically, do not express your disagreement by reverting our shortening work. Please do not bring it up here at talk. Instead, you need to achieve consensus to change policy first. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure Madame X is quite genuine. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * --CapnZapp (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I just need to point out, WP:TVPLOT is a guideline, not a policy. And the guideline itself says that "it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I fully agree with shortening of the wordier episodes and of giving others a nip and tuck where two words will do the job of seven, but shoe-horning them all into a hard and fast 200 words is not how it should be done. I've checked the Churchill/Munnings episode as an example and got it down to 249 words. A further push got it down to 238, that is the point where people would start objecting to key points being removed from the text. it doesn't need to be a hard and fast 200, just something sensible that isn't 340 words. - X201 (talk) 14:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Television series vary in terms of episode length and (much more importantly) in terms of "amount of content". So I'd agree with a certain level of caution here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I agree, X201. But I've also edited articles where wikizealots absolutely refuse to remove the Long plot tag if the relevant section is even 201 words. Sigh. Do note that's not the template I chose when I tagged the section - I personally believe the uneven summary lengths comes across as far wonkier to the reader. CapnZapp (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Shortening a section from 340 to 240 words is great stuff. Just don't get upset if somebody else later prunes it further to 190 words, say. Anyway, point here is (and must be) - consider not reverting someone's shortening work if it brings the section into compliance. That's shaky ground I can't personally recommend. Discuss it instead. Or edit it further. Just my 2 cents CapnZapp (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update required on 1 January 2020
File:William Nicholson - still life with water jug and pairs.jpg will shortly (and rightly) be deleted on Commons, but will be restored on 1 January 2020, when copyright in the work expires. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Only 1 year and 136 days, to go. Hoorah. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * But a question - if the painting is now not officially by Nicolson (and no-one seem able to prove exactly when it was painted), who holds the copyright? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not "officially not by Nicolson". One person says it is not; we are not bound by that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there's quite a difference between "not officially" and "officially not". But OK. Either way, does that affect the copyrght? Who holds the copyright? Is there any source for exactly when it was painted? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "One person says it is not" - lol, like it was some random bystander who said that. Talking about random, assuming you're just a random editor, why should your opinion matter and matter more? My question is serious. CapnZapp (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was random BBC bystander Patricia Reed. But who's the random editor... me or Andy? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If it was unclear I apologize. Look at the indentation - I was replying to Pigsonthewing, not you. CapnZapp (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is some useful clarification from User:Diannaa, and some links, in my discussion at User talk: Diannaa. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

P199 (talk | contribs) deleted the page on 17:07, 29 October 2018. CapnZapp (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

SVT season 3
SVT has found out its mistake by now and removed most links.

Here's a customer service reply confirming this (in swedish):
 * Ni har precis kört den underbara serien Konstdeckarna (Fake or Fortune), hur kommer det sig att ni hinner köra den innan den släppts i UK? Klagar inte bara undrar. Hoppas att ni fortsätter och köpa in den serien!
 * You've just run the wonderful series Konstdeckarna (Fake or Fortune), how come you have time running it before it's released in the UK? No complaints just wondering. Hope you continue to purchase that series!


 * Kul att du gillar Konstdeckarna! Sanning är att vi egentligen inte hade rätten att göra så, den gick ut innan UK av misstag.
 * Glad you like Konstdeckarna! Truth is we really didn't have the right to do that, it went out before the UK by mistake.

(excerpts my translation) www.svt.se/tittarservice/fraga-oss/dialog/358416

Here's an archived screenshot of the SVT streaming service offering ep 2: http://archive.is/xGTsE

CapnZapp (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Philip Mould's tweet is used to source the claim: https://twitter.com/philipmould/status/419265673916088320 CapnZapp (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

automatic archiving parameters
It appears User:‎Pigsonthewing contests having less aggressive parameters - how can that be a major beef? I see no reason why discussions should be archived already after 28 days for such a slow-moving talk page - this page is in no danger of getting overly long - but since my tweaks got reverted, I guess it's time for the talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't used "aggressive" anything; I used fairly standard archiving parameters, to archive discussions when no-one has contributed to them for thirty days; and always keeping the last three discussions visble. You altered this to 90 days, and for some reason changing minthreadstoarchive from "1" to "2", with an edit summary including "Might I suggest slightly slower params (no high-volume here)?", and I reverted you on the basis that I declined your suggestion. The "major beef" seems to be yours; as evidenced by your to a four-year-old discussion.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you didn't answer what about my tweak that was so unacceptable to you, let me try one more time. Please focus on the question "what are my reasons for reverting" next time instead of lashing out with personal insults, thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I see the 90-day delay, and pointless 2 have been restored, with no justification given. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for participating in talk to resolve conflicts. The justification for increasing your 28 day period has been given, twice, in the edit summary. Most recently: "this talk page volume doesn't warrant archiving discussions after only one month". Feel free to ask further if you have any follow-up questions.
 * As for the other parameter, I'll admit I am exercising non-trivial amounts of WP:AGF, but let me reinterpret your language as a friendly question: "I don't understand the purpose of the minthreadstoarchive parameter. Please tell me why you suggest an increase to 2, CapnZapp?". Why thank you for your question, User:Pigsonthewing! It is because we can have more than one (slow-moving) discussion going on concurrently. If the bot needs to archive a minimum of two threads instead of just one, it minimizes the risk of discussions getting cut off before they have run their course. Feel free to browse talk history (and, now, its archive) to see several instances of discussions going slowly. Personally, I like to set archival parameters that err on the side of caution - I'd rather see the talk page getting slightly longer (but still not long at all), than seeing talk page histories where the bot is every other contributor (removing new talk sections as they appear) as this comes across as "aggressive" in my mind.
 * So a general reply would be "why not" - it's not as if this page sees the kind of high volume that requires monthly archiving.
 * Finally, let me thank you for setting up automatic archiving in the first place. Do note (for the future) that the setup instructions do recommend us to first achieve consensus on talk before setting up automatic archiving, as it is apparently not considered uncontroversial and/or needed in all places.
 * Br CapnZapp (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

De Chirico - age of panel
"They also used radio carbon analysis to establish that the work was painted on a wooden panel from a tree felled before 1950, ruling out later forgery." The date of the panel does not rule out a later forgery since an old panel could be re-used. Did someone say this on the show? If so, we ought to attribute it. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The text is right but doesn't explain why. The test backed up the theory that de Chirico sent the painting to Vera Morris in the 1950s. i.e Morris received paintings in the 50s, so, for example, a 1970s fake, on a 1950's board, could not have been sent to her in the 1950s. - X201 (talk) 08:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I am a great fan of FoF, this is not the first time they have put great significance on a detail without a) properly explaining why and/or b) ruling out alternative explanations. Whether because they intentionally don't want to burden the show with crufty detail, or just as a consequence of too-quick editing, I wouldn't know. (And possibly not relevant anyway)
 * After thinking about it, I think the notable fact is how it's a series first (to use the nuclear lab thingy and reference atmospheric bomb tests), not because it added anything conclusive or even particularly useful to the case. (And I'm not talking about how the whole singer trail was a dead end) It's possible other ep summaries also uncritically just report what happens in the ep. Not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing, thou.
 * TL; DR: Go forth and boldly improve! :) CapnZapp (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think part of it is the educational aspect. This test is used to authenticate other artworks, so they want to show it viewers as something new. In this case it just confirmed a tiny fact about the age of the board, rather than be a smoking gun to the whole hunt. - X201 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Portraits write up (S5 E4)
Our description of the Portraits episode only contains a description of the paintings involved, there's no write up about the resolution of the programme. Has anyone got the episode recorded somewhere and could do a quick write up of what happened in each case? - X201 (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ CapnZapp (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

"the family of Hugh Penistone Cecil, son of Lord David Cecil" (S08E02)
Since neither of these fine chaps feature in the program, as a non-british non-royalist it strikes me as somewhat strange to not focus on the people actually in the show. I appreciate the effort to help the reader easily understand the family connection between the current owners and Peniston himself, but if we could do that while not referring to the participants as merely anonymous members of "the family of Sir Lord High and Mighty" (like how women used to be referred to as Mrs Somebody-Else) I would appreciate it... :) CapnZapp (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No objections to adding the names Hugh, Mirabel and Clem. Wikipedia notability is a funny thing, isn't it. Not sure one necessarily needs to be a "British Royalist" to suck up to Sir Lord High and Mighty. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You certainly don't need to :-) But anyway, my point wasn't to enter some random given names. I wanted our text to focus on the family's relation to the sitter on the portrait, rather than some Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Movie. This becomes relevant later when we try to express the line of inheritance. Something like "the owner is a greatgreat(etc) granddaughter of Emily, Peniston's sister" maybe? To me, that, and how the family tree always follows the female side, would be the relevant characterization of the owning family. But I'm not sure how to express that in clean crisp English... CapnZapp (talk) 07:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and took a stab at it anyway. CapnZapp (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

series colours?
Is there any rationale for the colours selected for series overview? I've browsed MOS:TVOVERVIEW and subsequent guidelines, but see no similarities to the style guide or any obvious adherence to MOS:COLOR. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 20:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've looked for the same as you in the past, it seems to be that MOS:TV never actually standardised anything. I know when I've added colours I've just copied a colour that was used in some other article. I've got no problem with either changing them to something different or standardising on a single colour, as long as Manual of Style/Accessibility/Colors is used in the process. The style guide you linked isn't for Wikipedia users, it's a reference guide for software developers creating Wikimedia software like Wikipedia, Commons, WikiData etc. - X201 (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are correct that policy appears to not only be "no policy", but specifically "any colour is just as good as any other" (except those messing with colourblindedness). With that in mind, if a single editor has selected the colours for all eight seasons, and that editor is you, then I'm satisfied, since you seem to be aware of the issues and you presumably operate on a slightly more satisfying long-term selection process than "randomly picking a colour from a random article". Cheers :) CapnZapp (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Giacometti - 22nd August 2019
I'm not sure how to treat the revised Giacometti episode. For the moment I have added it as a 5th episode in the current series. I'll leave it for others to make the decision Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't watch it. Thought it was just a re-run of the old episode to bulk the series out. Was there much in it that was new? - X201 (talk) 07:12, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of length of content, only about a minute. In terms of the specifics of the narrative, the new findings and reported sale dramatically changed the story. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've done some digging and as far as the programme website and BBC programme listings are concerned Series 8 only has 4 episodes and Giacometti is a Series 7 episode. So I think the best thing to do would be to move the content to an explanatory note in the Series 7 episode 5 entry in the article.. - X201 (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I see you went from "I think" to bold action in less than one hour; specifically referring to this talk page in your edit summary. While I have no objections in this particular case, I would like to remind everyone that if you participate in a call for opinions, courtesy calls for holding off at least a day (at the very least) to give other editors a chance to offer their opinions before assuming everybody agreed with you. In effect, you have closed this discussion, which, in other circumstances could come off as overbearing. Just a friendly heads up! CapnZapp (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No offence meant. Anyone, feel free to revert if you disagree. - X201 (talk) 14:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * On topic, can I ask y'all to make it more clear what the revision actually changes. Haven't seen it myself yet - if it really is only the text at the end (and no new footage) I would like our article to make that clear (as opposed to readers having to read this talk page). Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have made a small change to the entry to clarify that there was a short additional section of additional footage followed by on-scree text. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Did they go into how and where this signature was found? Sounds intriguing that it managed to evade detection despite the rather rigorous testing Mould (I believe) had it subjected to! Moreover, do they simply assume everybody understand that once a signature has been found, the piece of art gets automatically authenticated? Or was it sold without authentication? CapnZapp (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I should have known to check Mould's tweets before asking: https://twitter.com/philipmould/status/1164643005258764288 CapnZapp (talk) 09:17, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I took a stab at it, using the article Mould linked to. Feel free to massage the text further - remember I'm running "blind" here (haven't yet had the chance to catch the ep)! CapnZapp (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect they were trying to avoid the extra costs of shooting a lot more footage covering the paint removal, authentication by the foundation and the auction. Also, it would have needed a major re-edit of the existing programme to fit in the new stuff. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, it still raises the question of the specific timeline. We claim the ep was delayed in order for the Foundation's findings to come in (the "provisional" ones). At the time of broadcast, there is no indication of any signature or that this is an ongoing process. Yet later on we claim the final findings weren't made in time for the 2018 broadcast, which suggests the investigation was continuous and ongoing. The decision to delay the programme from the 2017 series was made but not to delay it from the 2018 series. It begs the question: Was the bulk of the episode filmed already in 2017? Was even the provisional findings an "add on" much like the 2019 one (not going into the semantics of whether you can call segments "added" if they're added before release) When was the signature found? Presumably after filming but before broadcast? And then someone took the decision to not share that information until the Foundation had had time for its final say?

Questions questions... CapnZapp (talk) 09:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is a Mould quote on artnet news: “Even though we have quite long lead times, we still work to a television deadline on Fake or Fortune? and the art world does not always observe the same pace,” Mould told the Telegraph. “This one took longer and more consideration than most. But it was worth waiting for.” (The Telegraph is the London Daily Telegraph.) I wonder whether this deserves a place somewhere in the article, or perhaps in Tête qui regarde. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What I would be interested in is the exact time line of the signature discovery. I'm asking since our article states

a) Fiona (by added voice-over) claims the discovery is after broadcast

b) Mould's linked Telegraph article claims the authentication couldn't be made in time for broadcast, implying the discovery was before broadcast

The only way I can make sense of this is if filming took place in 2017, and that they declined to mention the signature discovery prior to the original broadcast (by added voice-over etc). Why withhold this information then and why withhold it now?

I'm not looking to set up a conspiracy here :) I'm merely dissatisfied with the internal logic of the current state of our article. To that end, I have no opinion on your quote, other than it not really answering any questions... CapnZapp (talk) 12:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course "I have no opinion" was premature ;) I don't think we should add a info nugget specific to this particular copy to the article about the canonical piece unless it is of general relevance. In another talk thread I'm asking if this *is* the Gazing Head (but I do not believe it is) Regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

{Unreported UK viewers}
A recent edit summary made me look into what this template really stands for. As far as I can see the programme could have drawn 0.01 and still the template would remain unchanged. In other words, it can mislead you into believing a programme's figures are anywhere close to the reported parameter, as exemplified by the edit comment. I have raised this question over at the template talk page. CapnZapp (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Tête qui regarde.jpg
Is this the actual object featured in the programme, or is it just the canonical object? (My guess is on the latter, but this is not made clear to the reader of our article) CapnZapp (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a good point, and a right old rabbit hole. I've just spent a while looking at the different versions and can't find a match for the picture being used at the moment. I did find the actual Fake or Fortune version of it though, it's official number is AGD 4054 - X201 (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The picture uploaded on Wikipedia seems to be more or less randomly picked off of the internet: Maybe  the uploader can correct me on that?

I note that "our" plaster seems to be the only copy of Gazing Head in the AGD. Any reason we're not using that image (now that it exists)?

CapnZapp (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's AGD 460 in the database, that's plaster, the others are terracotta and bronze. I've been pondering what the process might be for using an image of "our" plaster. It would need to be specifically noted that it was AGD 4054. Altering the current image details to show that it's an unspecified version would be needed too. - X201 (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You said "Free images only, please" - what do you mean? Specifically where do you mean? Do you oppose that jpg being hosted on Wikipedia at all? Or merely its inclusion in this article? In the first case, reverting this article does nothing and you are in the wrong spot. In the second case, I don't see the argument that this article is somehow more restricted than Wikipedia at large? Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Any use of a non-free image on Wikipedia must meet the non-free content criteria. That one didn't. I've no particular opinion about whether that image belongs on Wikipedia at all, and I'm certainly not suggesting that "this article is somehow more restricted than Wikipedia at large". On the contrary, I'm holding it to the same standard as every other. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. What are you objecting against? CapnZapp (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

International Broadcasts section
Listing streaming sites, such as, "Series 4 has been available on Netflix (as Season 1) since December 2018," requires frequent checks for accuracy. For example, no episodes are currently available on Netflix.com (U.S. site), but might be on Netflix in other countries. Series 1-3 are currently available on Amazon Prime in the U.S., with the exception of Episode 3, Chagall (the site listing says its S03E03 is Chagall, but it's E04, Gainsborough, and there is no S03E04 on Netflix U.S.). The BritBox streaming service might have the show already or might acquire it later. My point is, the streaming information is volatile and may not be worth the effort to include.ClassicCF (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. Once it has been shown editors no longer keep up with changes, it's better to just state facts such as "It was available on Netflix during 2018" (example). Do make sure these statements remain notable. That Fake or Fortune became available on the American market is; which exact network is showing a particular series/season is maybe not. CapnZapp (talk) 10:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)