Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)

Would like to take a crack at a major rewrite as per the warning template
I've been keeping an eye on this article off-and-on for the last year or so, as a fan of the series and as an editor/creator of some related articles (those for the cast and Yonderland, for instance). At this point I'm confident that I'm experienced enough to at least significantly help to fix the major problems, as listed in the warning template at the top -- especially as I've been reading the talk-page discussion above, also reviewing the recent edit history, and find they also agree with my own assessment of what the issues are and what needs to be done to fix them.

As far as I can tell there's been no further discussion of what to do with the article within the last six months or so. Thus I'd like to propose that, as soon as I can get to it (probably in the next few days), I'll begin an extensive rewrite, subject of course to the longer-term editors' consensus at all times. It's a brilliant show, almost certainly destined to become a classic of children's TV, and it deserves the best Wiki article possible. Shoebox2 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Go for it Shoebox. Ceoil (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Recapitulating a bit what's been said in previous threads, I think we should keep references to primary sources to a minimum – or get rid of them altogether and put them under "External links", dunno. There are 9 to the Q&A session and ... er... uhm... many! to the ETF Masterclass. Good thing is that various things said at those conferences also appear in the press articles. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

could that include a rewrite of the DVD section to include up-to-date information on the DVD releases, including boxsets? Visokor (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly could. :) Shoebox2 (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, great, 'tis in my sandbox and I'm puttering away. Will post any potentially controversial questions/ideas here that I might have in the process. Thanks again. Shoebox 2   talk  15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, out-denting for new question: how much detail is too much? Specifically, is it strictly necessary to list every single parody inspiration the show ever had (as per 1st paragraph under "Sketches") or every single character the main cast ever played? Asking because it's technically encyclopedic information (and clearly represents a lot of painstaking work) but in practice reads as just meaninglessly huge walls of text that're easier to skip then get anything useful from. I'm thinking reducing both to several major hilights (I've got a pretty good idea of what those are to start) would be a lot more meaningful. Shoebox 2  talk  00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Characters: well, you've read my mind, have you? I've been thinking of writing just "Various roles" next to each actor. As for the main cast (seems to me like stating the obvious but as I got reverted twice when I tried it... Can provide diffs if required), we should list just the, well, main cast (ie, MB, SF, MHD, JH, LR and BW). The rest would go as "Additional" (or Recurring, dunno) and "Guests". Thoughts?
 * I substantially agree. For now I've divided the infoboxes more clearly into 'Main Cast' -- ie. the familiar sextet plus Sarah Hadland in series one, listed under 'Starring' -- and 'Additional Cast', ie. everybody else with more than one role, including Terry Deary, Meera Syal and Dave Lamb. Special guest stars, as defined as 'people whose specific notoriety was a significant point of their appearance', are listed in a section below that, after a short paragraph on the League of Gentlemen's appearance, which I think was notable enough to rate a special mention. Then, as what I hope is a viable compromise, I've listed only recurring roles for the actors that have them -- pretty much every acknowledged major role, save Baynton's Dick Turpin, was reprised at some point -- leaving the rest as 'various'. This also works as a way of indicating relative importance among the supporting cast. The details of one-off roles can always be placed in the actors' articles as needed/wanted. Shoebox 2   talk  14:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sketches: I'm not fussy, really. Probably it'd be better to leave one-offs out, or to incorporate the relevant ones into a general description of the show to contextualise them and avoid too many subheadings. At present it's unsourced – it may fall under WP:BLUE but I'm not sure. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  02:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Think it probably does to an extent, although some of the guesses at parody subjects are a bit dodgy. Think it's a good idea to incorporate the most significant -- again, as defined basically by 'most often used', and in this case also 'very obvious source' -- into a general 'Production History' section, which already includes a (massively stripped-down) description of the writing process. Shoebox 2   talk  14:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile -- on the subject of massive chunks of detailed text -- agreed that there's way too much emphasis on the Q&A & Masterclass conference, and will be cutting a lot of it (might leave it in as sourcing for a few technical/production points not easily found elsewhere). Besides the general problem with primary sourcing I don't like relying so heavily on just one or two POVs, even if one of them is the series producer. Also planning to summarise critical reaction under one heading and generally introduce a much more linear history of the show's production. Shoebox 2  talk  00:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Progress update: I've just about finished the rewriting itself, save for the (newly-renamed) 'Reception' section, which will like the rest be considerably cut down to a comparative simple, factual summary w/representative quotes. Otherwise, I think it's going pretty well: I've cut way down on the number of headers, removed nearly all of the extensive quotes and unnecessarily-detailed fancrufty stuff, and -- what I'm especially pleased with -- found more third-party sources that give more varied POVs on the show's conception/production history. (Have however left the Masterclass and BFI Q&A in there as sourcing for a few production-related bits that I felt genuinely added to the article, but couldn't source anywhere else.)


 * I've also as discussed above cut waaaaay down the lists of roles played and individual sketches. Also -- not sure if this'll be too conroversial, but -- removed the elaborate tables showing ratings by episode, on the grounds that a] again, waaaaay too much detail, as confirmed by other TV articles I've looked at; b) the tables were incomplete and I've found no way to recover the missing data; and c) they provide no useful context that a simple summary, which is what I've replaced them with, wouldn't provide just as well. Barring a series-by-series average, which would be wonderful if someone could provide it, there are for now enough reliable sources describing the show as a 'hit' for the reader to get the important idea.


 * Beyond that, I think the major need for article is a few photographs (there are any number of publicity stills of the actors in costume out there, and it would also be nice to have a visual for the animated titles)... and not much else really, save for perhaps some more genuinely relevant behind-the-scenes details. It seems to have been something of an (understandable) fad among UK television writers for the last few years to comment on the novelty of a children's series with adult appeal, so there's a huge amount of analytical/opinion stuff available; the problem is sorting through the mass to find the comparatively few encyclopedic, factual bits. Shoebox 2   talk  14:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Good work, Shoebox. Span (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  10:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for your help and encouragement. If any other interested editor would like to review & offer constructive feedback, the article draft is as noted in my sandbox. Shoebox 2   talk  19:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

[Out-denting for final announcement] OK, after carefully taking into account everyone's feedback and input, I think what I have here is a draft ready to be pasted into mainspace -- after a few final cosmetic tweaks anyway -- as of tomorrow (Sunday) evening. I'm still hoping to eventually pursue Good Article status, but my main concern for now is to see the article repaired, and I'm satisfied that that's been accomplished.

With that in mind... I have read WP:OWN, and believe I understand it fully... but may need to ask for a teeny bit of patience, regardless. :) Also, to request, please and thanks, that going forward any substantial changes or additions be at least run past the talkpage here prior to posting. I don't by any means claim that my version is the ideal one, or beyond improvement; but I have spent a solid week rescuing an article on a subject I feel strongly about, taken care to have it vetted by interested and experienced editors, and will continue to fight workEditing because damnit, I'm doing it already... as necessary for its improvement. Many thanks again for everyone's goodwill, Shoebox 2   talk  04:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * S'all right, Shoebox. Take whatever time you need. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  04:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. If an editor is taking on the work of a major re-write, other editors give them space to do it. Span (talk) 11:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, everyone, rewrite's up
See notes above re: my upcoming struggle with WP:OWN, also the many thanks for the help and support. :)

Below, noting a couple outstanding issues that came up during the rewrite process:

1) Images -- The ones in the article now (save for the title card at the top) were sourced and placed by User:Coin945. I'm not sure they're 100% suitable, but admit to finding the whole question of Wiki-images a bit daunting, so would welcome any further input. ''(Update: OK, have now received further input, from the editors at WP:NFCR, and in substantial agreement with their assessment, and on previous assurances from Coin945, have removed most of the current images... so we're back to square one. Honestly, I'm not sure if any other images at this point are going to enhance the article -- as was mentioned in the image review discussion, pics of people in historical costume aren't exactly going to act as a huge insight in an article about an historical sketch show.)''

2) Sourcing -- The previous version of the article had all of 111 sources, and that with heavy reliance on maybe five-ten. I've reduced it to 70-odd. Again, I'll absolutely admit this is by no means my area of expertise and welcome input (especially as regards the need to source awards/nominations), but am also pretty sure that that number doesn't need to dramatically go up again, nor that the wholly uncontroversial material in the Format section especially needs extra citations.

3) Level of detail -- By my best estimate I've removed 30,000+ words from the article, most of which was fancruft-y stuff that -- by consensus, as far as I can tell from the previous talkpage conversations above -- was actually heavily obscuring the readers' getting a decent handle on what the show is all about. What's left is based on and sourced in what's either obviously important to same, standard to Wiki TV articles as far as I can tell, or what reliable media commentaries have considered important. It's also been vetted by interested and experienced Wiki-editors. Please, going forward can we ensure that any further information meets at least one and preferably more of this criteria before it's added?

Cheers, Shoebox 2   talk  13:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sterling work, Shoe. Congrats for getting through it all. Span (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, your suggestions and encouragement had a lot to do with it. :) But yeah, this editing thing, it's sort of addictive. Think I might next take a crack at the HH episode and song list articles if I get a chance over the holidays... Shoebox 2   talk  16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry too much about images. Span (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Very nice article indeed. Many, many thanks. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  15:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks in significant part to your help. :) Shoebox 2   talk  15:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Potentially useful sources for article
It should be noted that most if not all of these were previously suggested during my recent rewrite. I've made notes below as to why I didn't use each one. Shoebox 2  talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Dave Cohen on writing HH music
 * “The thing that I love more than anything is writing songs — to be able to tell a story in three minutes and 200 words.”http://www.thejc.com/arts/arts-interviews/113983/making-horrible-histories-comedy-gold
 * "“You don’t write a lot differently [though] you take the swearing out and certain subjects you can’t talk about."http://www.thejc.com/arts/arts-interviews/113983/making-horrible-histories-comedy-gold
 * “There would be times when I’d have a joke in the song and they’d say you can’t have that, it’s not quite accurate enough”http://www.thejc.com/arts/arts-interviews/113983/making-horrible-histories-comedy-gold


 * This is about Cohen's experience writing the songs, not the songs themselves, and it's not particularly insightful even then. The background re: what eventually became the "It's Not True!" song might be usable in the song-specific article, though. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * CBBC executive opinion on show
 * Damian Kavanagh, Controller of CBBC, says: "I’m delighted that Horrible Histories is back on CBBC, it’s an amazing show that is clever, hilarious and has real stand-out appeal. The new series has surpassed even it’s own high standards with fabulous new sketches, top class comedy writing and truly memorable performances. Horrible Histories succeeds in engaging kids with stories from history and really gets them excited about facts from the past. The fact it is loved as much by adults as children is testament to the real quality of the programme.”http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/hh/horriblehistories.html


 * Executives had so much confidence in show, that: "The BBC has ordered another batch of episodes before the fourth run has even begun, the British Comedy Guide reports". http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news/a375535/horrible-histories-renewed-for-fifth-series.html


 * Of course the executives had faith/confidence in the show, they approved it in the first place, then watched it become a huge ratings hit and media darling that ran for five series and only ceased production at the producers' behest. All of which is already in the article. Otherwise I don't think it's necessary to spell out in detailed PR-speak just how happy they were. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The show left the air before it had a chance to go bad
 * Caroline Norris: "I never want anyone to say the show has gone off the boil – in fact the plan is to stop making while it will be missed.”"http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/hh/horriblehistories.html
 * "i dont want anyone to ever say 'its not as good as it used to be'".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN5AjcqvPvA


 * Ehhh... the first ref maybe, but the quote's from the start of the fourth series, a year prior to the end, and a lot of 'plans' could've changed in the interim. (I actually went looking for a 'this is formally why we stopped' press release or whatnot, and oddly enough didn't find one.) Barring which, there have been several different speculative rationales advanced for why the show stopped where it did, and none of them are particularly uncommon to TV shows generally. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ETA: The point in the article is already reffed to the fifth-series BFI Q&A, at which Norris made it clear that this series would be the last, and offered a few of those rationales (the big one seems to be that they'd just plain run out of history they could make funny). Which is still only relying on the informal word of one producer, but is the closest approach anyone seems to have made to an official announcement on the subject. Shoebox 2   talk  19:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Shoebox 2, I found this quote in an Express article from mid-2013 - which at least resolved the issue of using an outdated quote: “It’s incredibly hard, it takes a lot of time and our greatest fear is that the quality will slip." (Caroline Norris) http://www.express.co.uk/entertainment/tv-radio/402593/The-end-of-history-as-we-know-it Obviously it may not solve the other issues you raised, but I wanted to post it here regardless in case it could be used.--Coin945 (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it can at least be used instead of the direct link to the BFI Q&A to more efficiently ref what's already in the article, so thanks for that. But it also confirms that the more important point is actually that they'd run out of suitable historical facts after five years. I suspect the 'huge time commitment' thing was equally if not more important by then (let's face it, having lots of fun or no, that's a long time to ask adult creatives to devote their careers to a children's show), and that the obsession with 'maintaining quality' was more Norris' personal thing -- at any rate, nobody else is yet recorded as confirming it. Absent a formal announcement or at least a few more executives-who-aren't-Norris willing to make public statements, best just to leave it neutral. Shoebox 2  talk  18:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Way social issues are tackled
 * Re-imagining Rosa Parks’ celebrated civil rights protest as a soul number explained a complex issue in a clever, concise and accessible way without trivialising it. http://www.thestage.co.uk/features/tv-radio/2013/05/tv-review-horrible-histories-the-story-of-now-up-the-women/


 * This is already quoted in the Reception section. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Criticism of show: undermining national pride
 * "A few grumps...apparently see the whole thing as ‘liberal propaganda’ designed to undermine national pride, etc etc." http://www.popmatters.com/post/149373-horrible-histories-or-how-childrens-tv-grew-up-in-a-hurry/


 * The PopMatters blog entry is just that, a blog, not fact-checked in any way -- so this clearly offhand, non-specific comment could literally have come from anywhere, including off the top of the writers' head. This issue is anyway not brought up in any of the many other media commentaries on the subject, serious or no. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * About people, not dates
 * "Both comedy and historical scholarship are largely the art of exploring, then exploiting, the dichotomy between what people like to think of themselves as and what they really are."http://www.popmatters.com/post/149373-horrible-histories-or-how-childrens-tv-grew-up-in-a-hurry/ --> big theme of HH, re: "I’m not interested in history. I’m interested in human beings. Why we behave the way we do. Look at the past and you get answers.”"http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2011-05-28/interview-terry-deary---horrible-histories


 * In my opinion this is bordering on original research. At any rate, two different people speaking about vaguely similar subjects in a vaguely similar way, in a vaguely similar context, does not a viable encyclopedic point make. Deary's comment is interesting in the context of the overall HH franchise's origins, and could probably be used in that article, but doesn't refer specifically to the creative intentions of the TV series, with which he self-admittedly had little to do. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, "look at the past and you get answers", Coin. And a very recent past indeed: just one or two threads above. Wikipedia is not a place to pour your perspicacities into. And please, please (beseechingly), however enamoured you are of your own voice, accept the possibility that others may find it a rather discordant bray. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes a modern audience feel clean and antiseptic
 * Caroline Norris: "The thing about Horrible Histories is that it makes you appreciate living in the modern day"http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/hh/horriblehistories.html


 * I'm sorry, but this is the absolute epitome of random trivia. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HH's global appeal (or lack thereof)
 * "If Bradley has a disappointment it is that Horrible Histories has not yet taken off in a big way internationally. “We’re optimistic that we will start to see some progress, but the thing we’ve learned is that not all countries are able to laugh at their history. In some cases, that’s because recent events are still too painful. In others it’s that there is no culture of laughing at the past. The Americans don’t laugh at their presidents in the way the British laugh at their kings and queens.”"http://tbivision.com/highlight/2013/11/kids-tv-seriously/185741/


 * This is a two-year-old quote that may not reflect current events, and without further context must be considered Bradley's own speculation on the subject to begin with. As discussed previously, hard data re: what other countries aired the show when would be much more useful. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * HH as a troupe
 * "As the writing gets sharper, the performers visibly gain trust in each other and their ability to bring their own distinctive comic styles into the mix, becoming a bonafide comedy troupe"'''http://www.popmatters.com/post/149373-horrible-histories-or-how-childrens-tv-grew-up-in-a-hurry/


 * Again, blog. Anyway, the article already refers to them as 'a troupe' with no issues. It's simply a convenient shorthand for 'creative group who deliberately work together', not a particularly bestowed title that needs a cite. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * No laugh track
 * Interesting point to make: this is a sketch show that contains no laugh track http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/horrible_histories/details/


 * Literally none of the many, many media commentaries on this show have mentioned the use of a laugh track in any context, making it an even more unnecessarily extraneous detail than it already was. Shoebox 2   talk  16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Miscellaneous sources that I haven't read yet
 * Horrible Histories - the hysterical success story --> (requires subscription)


 * It would be nice if an editor with a Times subscription could take a look for potential further usable details, but for now it's cited in the Reception section as clearly a serious milestone in the show's growing media attention. 16:44, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Shoebox 2  talk

Comments on HH made by Education Secretary Michael Gove

 * "In further comments, he suggested that Horrible Histories, the books and television series created by Terry Deary, was a useful tool spark interest in “neglected” periods of history in schools such as the 17th century." "He...said the centenary of the outbreak of the First World War presented an opportunity to "generate empathy" instead of simply viewing it through the traditional "prism" of Blackadder and Oh! What a Lovely War."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10542727/Michael-Gove-criticises-disconnected-history-lessons.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/10543398/Ancient-history-is-all-Greek-to-children-today-claims-Michael-Gove.html
 * The first quote is indeed valuable, and I've added it to the 'Historical Accuracy' section accordingly. The second... doesn't have anything to do with HH, as far as I can see. Even given the broadest possible definition of 'opportunity', I doubt very much that the Secretary is even aware that the show is planning a WWI special. Shoebox 2   talk  21:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments by actor Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley etc.)

 * "My friend's son knows every single king and queen of England because of their song. That is teaching genius."http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/williams-documentary-designs-001806048.html
 * "The show has done for history what JK Rowling did for reading".http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/williams-documentary-designs-001806048.html
 * Kind words indeed. I gather Williams has quite the reputation as a presenter of history-themed documentary series, thus the second quote has fair validity--and is also nice and pithy--so can be added without too much issue. Unless he has an education-related degree that I'm missing, though, the first quote is pushing it a bit. Don't mean to be over-pedantic, but at this point there's an embarrassment of riches in the 'Reaction' section to begin with, so I think we can at least afford to be picky. Shoebox 2   talk  15:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed the first quote could be used as an alternative to the source explaining that the songs have great memorisation powers (which if memory serves was flakey once upon a time). In any case his words are rather hyperbolic and enjoyable to read. Hope you had a fun few seconds indulging in his critical praise for HH..--Coin945 (talk)
 * Oh, I see. Right now I don't think there's anything in the current article stressing the catchiness of the songs--it's not really relevant to anything but the specific memory challenge in the K&Q song, which is already reasonably well-sourced to an interview with the cast, so. Williams' comment doesn't anyway prove anything beyond one kid, and even that's secondhand. Still, as you say, very enjoyable as a compliment. :) Shoebox 2   talk  16:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound harsh, but this is just fancruft of the highest order. We can't cram every comment made by everyone into the article. This is just the opinion of an actor – not an educator or a historian (and I won't go into what the comparison with Rowling is supposed to mean) Besides, Yahoo! isn't precisely a RS. Anyway, up to you. Sorry but this is getting a tad tiresome. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  02:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Objections noted, and valid -- actually, they sound a lot like my initial ones, this morning. The only thing that swayed me into including the Rowling quote was his reputation as a presenter of historical programming and documentaries generally; I got the idea that that might translate into some distinctive authority on the subject, this morning with Google's help, but am entirely willing to stand corrected. Especially because the more I looked at it in-article, the sillier I felt trying to figure out what it meant. Removed, with a self-resolution to look at these things more critically before adding, next time. Shoebox 2   talk  05:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Popularity of songs (on YouTube)

 * "songs from the comedy shows have gone on to become YouTube sensations — gaining as many as two million hits."http://www.pentictonwesternnews.com/entertainment/239345151.html --> I dont think we have a source for this at the moment.
 * We don't really need a source; the article's current (much more modest) statement that 'the videos have gained a measure of standalone popularity on YouTube' isn't likely to be challenged. And I don't see any reason to change that statement based on the above. The young lady in question clearly isn't an expert on these things, esp. if she thinks 'two million hits' constitutes a bonafide 'YouTube sensation'. (I checked the front page, and noted that something from an obscure magician's channel called 'Walking on Water Prank' already has three million hits.) Shoebox 2   talk  16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Possibly noteworthy criticism of the show?

 * "But not all parents do love Horrible Histories. I've spoken to several who are appalled by the body count in each TV episode and are not convinced that any of the intellectual "bran" is being digested."http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/20633078/bloody-silly-but-hugely-entertaining/
 * Several anonymous parents as polled by an obscure Australian newspaper editor doesn't really count as a noteworthy critique, no. Besides which, content-wise this is a near-duplicate of the Spectator quote that already leads off the 'Historical Accuracy' section. Shoebox 2   talk  16:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on the show from a historian

 * "Horrible Histories may be a kids’ programme but it’s extremely well made and makes every effort to blend historical accuracy with a novel approach. I have a history degree, but I’ve still learned a thing or two from watching it."http://www.salisburyjournal.co.uk/leisure/from_the_art/10946123.An_education_from_Horrible_Histories/
 * Yeah, no. It's a nice tribute, but it's also an anonymous one (from a reader who claims 'a history degree', which is not quite the same thing as being a noted historian) and doesn't add anything useful.

Look, Coin, I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, but trying to catalogue every single random online mention of the show isn't helping anything. We already have a lengthy and legitimate reception/criticism section in the article. At this point any additions made to it are going to have to come from legitimate, notable commentators who have both authority on the subject and something interesting to say on it. Shoebox 2  talk  16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Putting these quotes in this talk page isn't hurting anyone. I see no reason why you should be getting upset or annoyed. I'm simply sharing some bits and pieces that I've found. If you don't think they'd work in the context of the article, simply don't use them. But don't be offended. There is no agenda behind my edits so please don't create one.--Coin945 (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not offended... just honestly bewildered as to why you'd even bother so carefully cataloging these obviously unusable 'bits and pieces'. I appreciate your posting them to the talkpage instead of straight into the article, but if this is your ongoing idea of effective sourcing or additions then yeah, I do have to admit to being a bit concerned about that, if only as regards the integrity of other articles you may be working on. Shoebox 2   talk  12:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Horrible Histories Interactive paragraph for article
The Terrible Treasures bit hangs off the end. I should know... I put it there in the first place when I wrote it. These should be more than enough for some sort of paragraph.section about all the interactive/web content and games provided by the TV show.--Coin945 (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Also supported with games, online extra content, a quiz and karaoke on CBBC Extra via the red button and a free Horrible Histories Prom."Horrible Histories: comedy for all ages
 * " multi-platform promotion for the new series of Horrible Histories we aimed to shift perceptions of the CBBC brand; positioning it as cool, feisty, bold, fresh and infectious."http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-cbbc-yourself
 * "We devised a multi-platform beauty spoof campaign We ran promos in BBC airtime, created countdown web banners and an interactive photo application for the CBBC website and placed cinema trailers ahead of Shrek Forever."http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-cbbc-yourself
 * "The programme averaged 180,000 viewers during its timeslot (24.4% of 6-12s) and was the 2nd highest performing programme in this slot. On the first day the Horrible Histories microsite had over 35,000 unique users - nearly 25% of unique users on CBBC that day."http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-cbbc-yourself
 * "our aim was to grow love for the brand and increase online use, particularly among 6-12 year olds"http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-horrible-hero
 * "We devised a spoof talent show promo campaign with Queen Elizabeth, a Victorian Pauper and an Aztec, all competing for the title “Horrible Hero.” We created online behind the scenes videos and an interactive feature where kids could select their Horrible Hero, upload photos and create personalised Horrible Hero albums."http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-horrible-hero
 * "Following the campaign, 88% of the target audience identified Horrible Histories as a CBBC programme, which was a 10% increase from the previous year. The Horrible Hero television promo drove over 100,000 requests for Horrible Histories content online, leading two thirds of the audience to agree that CBBC was an inviting, interactive and involving channel."http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-horrible-hero
 * "“I am absolutely delighted with this year’s campaign from Horrible Histories. The creative execution of the trail captured the tone of the show perfectly, and cleverly used a modern format to appeal to a very wide audience. The promo was complimented by a fun and easy-to-use digital application, which gave the campaign a wonderful richness and allowed our viewers to interact with the show in a truly meaningful way.” Jamie Dodds, Creative Marketing Manager, BBC Children’s"http://www.redbeemedia.com/work/horrible-histories-horrible-hero
 * List of mini-games
 * "A very fun game with obvious similarities to Guitar Hero for the CBBC show “Horrible Histories”. It takes advantage of Stage3D in an appealing and engaging live music stage environment. What is amazing though is the combination of actually really fun music with an increasing level of difficulty, and simple, but fun action. AD/BC Time Tour is probably the closest you get to Guitar Hero on the web today."http://www.overdigital.com/2012/04/05/horrible-histories-adbc-time-tour-and-stage3d/
 * ,, <--  Pretty detailed articles by Lion Television about the games created for series 1, 2, and 3 respectively
 * Information on some HH projects worked on by Jim Hall, namely Time Sewer Adventures & AD/BC Time Tour. <-- click on 'work" then scroll down.
 * Ad for the Get the Look game
 * There was also an internet reminder from Rattus Rattus about the Horrible Histories 'Terrible Treasures' game at the end of each episode (starting in series 2):
 * "Want to travel through the time sewers with me? Ha! Then play Horrible Histories 'Terrible Treasures'. Go to the CBBC website and click on Horrible Histories!"
 * "Want some more Horrible Histories? Then come with me down the Time Sewers. Just go to the CBBC website and click on Horrible Histories. See you down there!"
 * "Psst! Can you keep a secret? No, me, neither. I've just found some great games in the Time Sewers. Want to come and play? Then just go to the CBBC website and click on Horrible Histories. See you there!"
 * "WILL JEWELL and wrote and co-directed series one of the BBC’s ‘Horrible Histories: Terrible Treasures’ web series."http://raindancefestival.org/webfest/making-drama-work-online-panel/
 * Terrible Treasured ad
 * "Since Horrible Histories Terrible Treasures first launched in August 2009 it has been CBBC’s top rated game. In 2010 two new adventures were completed along with a special bonus game allowing players to explore even more disgusting eras"http://horriblehistoriesaudiobooksiit.wordpress.com/
 * Terrible Treasures at StarryDog


 * Again, this was already discussed on -- and I think is posted wholesale from -- my sandbox talkpage. I admit to remaining entirely baffled (as among other things a Canadian who can't access most of it) as to why this particular part of the HH TV experience is such a huge deal, so would welcome third-party opinions. Reposting my original rationale for not including any of this:


 * OK, had another review of the marketing interactive media and I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as notable in the context of the show itself. It's a marketing campaign as all TV shows have, involving online-based multimedia as most marketing campaigns do these days. An apparently successful and even award-winning campaign which is great... but it's just not unusually innovative or otherwise very remarkable -- as demonstrated by the fact that 99% of your sources are primary, ie. the ad agency itself. Nobody else seems to have cared, to put it bluntly, so it's unlikely the reader will consider it essential either.


 * (back to present) Since then, have had a look through a representative sample of other TV articles, and as far as I can tell the precedent appears to be that, outside significant standalone notoriety (a la the Aqua Teen Hunger Force Boston LED debacle, or Mad Men's various kerfuffles re: deliberately provocative imagery) marketing campaigns/promo spinoffs typically either aren't included (Breaking Bad) or rate no more than a basic, factual summary (The Walking Dead). And this, mind you, is for hugely popular international mainstream series. Meaning the existing short section here is, clearly, already more than enough.  Shoebox 2   talk  17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ETA clarification re: the related question posed in article's latest editing summary: Yes, the existing couple paragraphs ultimately survived because awards/nominations. I left them under 'spinoffs' as a compromise, because as noted above I don't think a fuller Marketing section is anywhere near warranted. Note that I would not at all be crushed if future consensus was to eliminate the existing paragraphs altogether. Shoebox 2   talk  23:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What I would say in response to your logical and entirely correct comments is that the two paragraphs, as they stand, go into probably too much detail about a comparitiely small part of this topic. Even a mere line about the marketing/interactive stuff in general, shoehorned in in somewhere in the production section, as opposed to a short explanation of one of the many games, would seem to be more justified..at least to me. I acknowledge its relative insignificance in regard to the series as a whole, but it seems to have driven substantial traffic to the show and created a web interactive community, so it would seem just as unbalanced to not include info about it at all, than if it was granted its own full paragraph. So, as I said, swapping the Terrible Treasures info for a more general aside about this thing would be the preferred option, and would also serve the article by getting rid of the weird addition to the spin-off section.--Coin945 (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, I'll write a little something for the Horrible Histories franchise article, which previously was utterly woeful, and is still quite a big mess (althoguh considerably neater). It'll go under the "Games and toys" section.--Coin945 (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * A general aside? So basically leaving us with 'Horrible Histories had a marketing campaign consisting of some extra content and some games, which were nominated for some awards'? Sorry, not quite seeing how that's an improvement. Coin, what you don't seem to be getting here is that online marketing/community-building of this type, successful or no, is an extremely routine element of any modern TV show -- in particular children's TV shows. (Besides the CBBC/CBeebies sites, I suggest you also have a look at the website for the corresponding Canadian cable channel, www.treehousetv.com).
 * Even that it was successful only becomes interesting if HH were to become an international multimedia phenomenon whose every move is mentioned in the Hollywood Reporter (a la The Walking Dead). Or maybe if you could otherwise somehow prove (from a neutral non-primary source, ie. other than blatant ad agency puffery) that HH's campaign was unusually successful in comparison to all the many, many others. (Note however that the marketing for Breaking Bad inspired entire entire Forbes magazine articles about its effectiveness, but still doesn't rate an automatic mention in its Wikipedia articles.) As it stands here and now, the only way the HH online experience stands out in any form or fashion is the awards...
 * ...Y'know what? You've about convinced me to remove the existing paragraphs and just leave the awards table to tell the story. I apologise for treating a subject you so obviously care about so bluntly, but as I mentioned below -- and I believe others have mentioned to you in the past -- there are lots of fan-run wikis where this kind of thing would be appropriately given entire articles. Based on what I've seen of your editing philosophy so far, I strongly, and very sincerely, urge you to look into editing of that type, rather than continually trying to shoehorn blatant fancruft onto Wikipedia. Shoebox 2   talk  18:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion is all about ideas being proposed and the bad ones being filtered out. I have no sense of defeat or inferiority as a result of what you have just said. We are all working in service of the article, and your reasoned critique of my suggestion is completely justified. I now see this section in a new light and acknowledge that it truly is run-of-the-mill for shows such as these. As I said, removing the paragraphs would clean the spin-off section and if that is what you think is best, then so be it. I may still add a little mention to the HH page though. Unless of course you think it doesnt deserve a place there. After all, I am making judgements on what sort of info should be in the franchise article, but other opinions are most certainly welcome. After all, how can the bad ideas be filtered out if there's noone to do the filtering...--Coin945 (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, however, routine or no, Red Bee Media has picked up a reasonable number of nominations and awards, and as previously acknowledged both Horrible Histories Interactive and the Terrible Treasures game have their own accolades... so I dunno... is it really undeserving of at least a mention? The Red Bee Media stuff has NEVER been added to the article, even though it's the company behind pretty much all of it and has received the most accolades. So I wonder if it was simply a case of retaining what was already in the article, rather than shrewdly assessing the sources and deciding if anything had to be included or removed.--Coin945 (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ...Seriously? At your insistence I've looked at the same sources three times now, and likewise written my opinion based on them, in full, with extended rationales backed up with examples, three bloody times. I'm not continuing with this nonsense. Coin, if you're honestly wondering why editors have a problem being civil with you, a close reading of this discussion might just provide an answer.  Shoebox 2   talk  20:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So, I've been blowing hot and cold about these awards (some of them appear to be notabl-ish) and finally came to the conclusion that they're not worth including. Having awards received on account of actory/writery abilities all lumped together with marketing campaigns seems a bit clumsy, especially now that the section providing some sort of context has been deleted –something I completely agree with, btw. Anyway, leaving it up to you. I'm not that fussed. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  23:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Coco. Actually, having discovered that Red Bee Media has their own Wikipage, I think I might have come up with a decent compromise: Coin, why don't you create a little 'Awards' section on that page, and place the HH stuff therein? You might need to do a bit more research into these (and other awards RBM has possibly won) just to make it all plausible, but I can't imagine anyone on that article objecting. Meanwhile, I'll add a short line in this article under 'Production' to the effect of 'Interactive marketing for the show was handled by Red Bee Media', providing Wikilink to further info. What say? Shoebox 2   talk  00:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I can't see its relevance and, as you've said, common-or-garden marketing campaigns are generally not mentioned at all. -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  01:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I know, and I still agree. In fact, I like the idea of removing the marketing awards from the table altogether, but as this all seems to be so desperately important to Coin, I thought to see what could be done to salvage them first. On the other hand... I also see his proposed 'little something' on the HH franchise page has now turned into a full-blown section -- which seems even more dubious to me than its inclusion here. However, that's for the concerned editors on that page to take up. For now I think we can fairly remove the awards from the table here, and let Coin make the case for them as he likes either there or on Red Bee Media's page. Shoebox 2   talk  03:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, so back on the subject of that episode list article rewrite...
I've commenced merging/rewriting, having given it a week as promised and no objections as yet (or response at all other than Coin's, actually). Results (for Series One half-way through Two) can now be found in my sandbox. Summary of the proposed changes can be found on the episode article's talkpage. Feedback welcome either here or there. Thanks, Shoebox 2   talk  04:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination
I've gone ahead and submitted the Good Article nomination. Now that the rewrite's completed and everyone interested has had a chance to tweak and improve, I'm genuinely curious how close we all are to being rewarded for the hard work. :) Shoebox 2   talk  19:54, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on getting it prep'd Span (talk) 01:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I had a close reading of the criteria before nominating, and it seems like we're at least within range. :) Shoebox 2   talk  03:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Some links that might be of use:
Came across these whole scouting Google books for a different article. Who knows.. Maybe they have some useful info. (There's a bit in one about the Stephen fry version - sown thing that I know was a topic for debate during the ga review).--Coin945 (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * http://books.google.com.au/books?id=vc4ig8T4W5sC&pg=PA179&dq=horrible+histories&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xbEnU4GiE8rUkgWv4YHABQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw
 * http://books.google.com.au/books?id=afypAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA390&dq=horrible+histories&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zb8nU92zI8fPkgWE0YD4DQ&ved=0CEMQ6AEwBDgK


 * Thanks much for the thought, Coin, we definitely could do with some extra book/scholarly article-type sources. Unfortunately though I don't see anything useful here beyond--just possibly--the mention of the show being 'considered very successful' in that first link. Not sure where the Stephen Fry reference comes in, the first book doesn't appear to mention him and the second has no preview at all. Shoebox 2   talk  23:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh. He was mentioned in the second link in regard to how his role as host played a part in the repackaging of the series. But in retrospect it was no more than a mention. The bit that also stood out to me in the first link was that it took 4 years for Bradley to finally get the rights.--Coin945 (talk) 00:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting comment on violence used on the show in the context of the historicalness (and therefore emotion distance) of its subject matter: "Horrible Histories is a great example of pre-modern nastiness as entertainment: the books and TV series replay usurpations, gladiatorial combat and tyrannical lunatics as slapstick. The formula works because kids just love anything that involves blood and guts. As such, Horrible Histories has probably done more to educate people about history than a million PhD theses. But it’s odd that there isn’t more complaint about its carefree violence." http://www.historytoday.com/tim-stanley/forgiving-crimes-past--Coin945 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A viable point it may or may not be (personally, I'm sceptical that the reasons for emotional distance from history are all that difficult to find, unless one's starting from an ivory tower to begin with), but it's a point connected to a larger argument that correctly belongs in a scholarly discussion, not a factual article. And without that context there's nothing here that hasn't already been said about the show ad nauseum. Shoebox 2   talk  20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Random, probably useless fact: members of the Regia Anglorum Society ( a nationwide group who recreate Norman, Anglo-Saxon and Viking history and bring it to life at events all over the Britain), acted in Horrible Histories sketches. http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/photos-birminghams-st-georges-day-7010565--Coin945 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite. The article simply mentions in passing that some of the troupe members have prior experience on the show. Which is even less interesting than what wasn't very interesting to begin with. We have enough trouble prioritizing the speaking cast to everyone's satisfaction; unless one turns out to be the ghost of Henry VIII himself, I categorically refuse to start researching the extras. :) Shoebox 2   talk  20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure if theres a source for this, but i was just thinking about the fact that the show incorporated new historical facts into the show, such as the discovery of Richard III's remains under the carpark - it was one of the multiple choice questions quite soon after it happened.--Coin945 (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but that was both a strikingly important addition to historical knowledge and something the show was already invested in, having inadvertently become relevant to it by virtue of the song. At any rate, how recent or not the show's scholarship might be is a non-issue; the accuracy is the point. Shoebox 2  talk  20:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does it not suggest that if something in the HH books became obsolete due to newly uncovered knowledge, the Tv series would have chosen the fact over the literal interpretation of the books' content? For example, if something was considered true when the book came out but now not so much. --Coin945 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It may well do--and I agree it might make an interesting point if there were any kind of source confirming it--but it's literally never come up as an issue in any of the many interviews with either Greg Jenner (whose job such updating would've been) or anyone else. There is in fact an equal amount of evidence that they repeated mistakes/outdated scholarship from the books (severely underestimating the height of William I's bride Matilda, for example). Shoebox 2   talk  19:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

So they've revived the show (sort of)...
...and I'm thinking it would be helpful to get consensus on what to do about it now, prior to airing, to prevent this article being unnecessarily disfigured all over again.

Essentially: Lion TV and the CBBC have contrived to relaunch live-action sketch-based Horrible Histories, but in most important respects an all-new version--as it would have to be, given the original five series wrapped up with a very deliberate grand finale. Hence the 'sixth series' will in fact involve an entirely different format as enacted by a largely all-new production team and starring cast. On the other hand, it's clearly set within the same universe; several of the writers will be returning, a few castmembers will be making re-appearances as familiar characters (notably Farnaby as Death) and the song parodies will still be a feature.

All of this, needless to say, is inevitably going to be a nightmare to try and shoehorn into this already teetering-on-the-verge-of-overlong article. Frankly, while I still have great affection for the show, I don't want to spend the rest of my writing life sorting through cast list chaos. So what I'd really like to do, and personally think there's easily enough justification for, is to give the revived HH similar treatment to Horrible Histories with Stephen Fry: a brief overview in this article with a link to a more detailed standalone page--perhaps called, in line with this one, Horrible Histories (2015 TV series). I'd be pleased to set up the skeleton of same--infobox etc.--and let any and all freshly-enthused editors have at it from there.

Thing is, as usual, I'm not sure of Wikiprecedent for this sort of thing, and glancing through the article on revived TV series didn't make it quite as clear-cut as I hoped it would. So I'm open to any and all advice and guidance... Thanks, Shoebox 2   talk  01:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I feel your pain, brother... Many articles have to be tweaked and fiddled with way past their GA point, because circumstances simply change. I havent yet read press coverage to do with this revived version so have no opinions on it just yet. My initial question is: what does this new series have to do with the 2015 "King John And The Magna Carta" special?<http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/life/554938/Comedian-Ben-Miller-interview--Coin945 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. upon reading the press release, I do think it is a case of (to quote a whitney houston song) Same Script, Different Cast. But to make it easier, if you think it warrants a seperate article, I'm 100% behind you. http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/horrible-histories-return-tv---8395643--Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, there has been some wikiprecedent for handling this in both ways.  For example, Doctor Who isn't separated into two articles, although I suspect that's because the 2005 re-launch wasn't really a re-boot, but was a continuation that depended on and referred back to previous series.  It's a huge article--over 72,500 characters, while the HH article, while long, is a much shorter 33,000 characters.  The length of both articles is warranted, due to the profound influence both shows have on British culture.  Battlestar Galactica is separated into two articles--for the 1978 original and the 2004 version.  The later version was a re-boot, though, with the same characters but told very differently.  I understand why you would create two articles, and I'd support the choice, but it depends upon whether the new version of HH is a continuation or a re-boot.  If it's a continuation, I see no problem with keeping one article; if it's a re-boot, two articles would be appropriate.  However, I understand the logic behind two articles.  If the producers consider the new version separate from the original, I suggest creating a second article; if they don't, you should stick with one article.  If you create another article for the new version, I suggest that you not say that it's the "sixth series", unless, of course, that's the way the producers think of it.  Hope this helps. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The example that came to my mind initially was Dallas (2012 TV series), which was essentially a continuation of Dallas (1978 TV series).--Coin945 (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks much, both of you, for the clarity and the support. :) Having given it further thought along the lines suggested by Christine (and the Dallas example), I've come to the conclusion that what we have here is indeed a properly defined reboot, given a) the extreme format changes (from random sketches set in multiple eras to revolving around a central figure, played by a special guest star, and their era) and b) the fact that the producers do apparently consider it a separate entity within the HH universe--as they must, given the original's aforementioned deliberate finale. A new production team, esp. on a children's edutainment programme must necessarily mean changes to goals, ideals etc that I think could be much more comfortably articulated in their own right.


 * So: separate article for now at least, with room for further review depending on whether the reboot becomes a viable multi-series entity in its own right or not (as seems to be the goal). I'll try and get the new article set up by the end of next week (or sooner, depending on how long it takes the IP hordes to descend on this one...) --Thanks again, Shoebox 2   talk  16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So when is this separate article going to manifest itself? Fighting against this page being up to date is insane when the people making it are calling thenew material series 6. 176.10.250.15 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, hey, Wikipedia is a fully collaborative effort; there's nothing (that I can see, anyway) stopping yourself from creating the new article at any time--and clearly with considerably more enthusiasm than I find myself able to muster. :) That said, I did say I'd do it... then, well, real life got rather inconveniently real, and Wikiediting generally slipped to the bottom of the priority list.
 * Tell you what: I'll pledge (and mean it this time) to have the skeleton of a new article--properly linked to in the old--by, say, this Sunday. Whereupon you and any other interested parties can go to town fleshing it out without interference. This article, however, I've put a whole lot of hard work into--enough that it's an FA--and I will continue to take exception to random, disorganised edits. Shoebox 2   talk  02:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how this is a reboot at all. The BBC is officially calling it series 6 (see the iPlayer), some of the original cast appears, the title and opening credits are the same. I don't think it's nearly different enough to warrant a whole new series page. The format change can be explained simply by each of the episodes having "Special" in the title, which is how they are listed in the iPlayer. I think the new episodes need to be merged into the current series page, even though that creates a little extra work with the cast list. It would be cleaner and more accurate that way. proudpom  — Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So which is it then, a sixth series or a set of specials? :) Please go back and read the discussion again re: the changes that have been made, here and on the 2015 article's talkpage. It's not just a matter of 'a little extra work with the cast list', it's a huge honking rewrite involving a new set of producers, directors, cast and creative/educational goals. To say nothing of the ongoing maintenance, especially since the HH TV articles tend to attract very few experienced, adult editors and a whole lot of enthusiastic IP-only, erm, amateurs. Speaking as the primary driver behind raising this article to Featured status, I do not fancy spending what I assure you would quickly become most of my free time keeping it that way.
 * All that said, I do think the question can and should be reopened once this series/set of specials has finished airing and decisions are taken as to whether they're one-offs or this is the beginning of a long-term series. In the meantime, though, the existing solution seems to be working out splendidly for all concerned. Let's not break what doesn't need fixing, eh? Thanks, Shoebox 2   talk  23:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Article for reboot series is now up...
...with, again, my profuse apologies for the delay. :) It's at Horrible Histories (2015 TV series), as discussed. I've included all relevant points as I understand them; interested editors are, of course, welcome to build on that foundation, and a note to that effect will be added to the FAQ above. Thanks, Shoebox 2   talk  21:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Series 6
I think they are doing series 6 with new cast. --137.44.126.255 (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's on the BBC Media page - and it's been filmed; mix of new and old cast. 80.189.41.134 (talk) 10:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cast article?
With a sixth series on the way, with an almost entirely new regular cast, just thinking that trying to fit all the different performers into one section of an article could get increasingly confusing. Particularly confusing is the different categories of actors such as; "starring" actors (i.e. Martha Howe Douglas, Matt Baynton etc.), "regular" supporting cast (Lawry Lewin, Dominique Moore etc), "minor" supporting cast (Javone Prince, Lisa Devlin etc), recurring guest stars (David Baddiel, Meera Syal, League of Gents. etc) and one off guest stars (Alexei Sayle, Chris Addison etc.). To add to the chaos the new series completely revamps the original starring lineup (Baynton, Farnabay, Howe-Douglas, Howick, Rickard & Willbond) with only Farnabay and Howick returning. As well as these two the new lineup now also features Naz Osmanoglu, Adam Riches and Tom Stourtan. To make matters even more confusing, supporting actors from previous series, Jalaal Hartley and Jessica Ransom, are now promoted to starring performers, somewhat reverse of Sarah Hadland's case. Additionally Lawry Lewin, from series 2 to 5 returns as a supporting performer. Bearing all of this in mind, i was think weather it would be a good idea to give the cast members an article of their own, i.e. List of Horrible Histories cast members. This make it far easier to break down the categories of performers. The show had definitely run for long enough and received more than enough popularity for a stand alone cast article. If you think this is a good idea i'll get started as soon as possible, but might need a little help as i am not an experienced user :) User:Xpion (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Xpion, and first of all, thanks much for taking this to the talkpage first. I agree with you that the cast list has the potential to become very unwieldy; that's part of the reason why I opened the discussion re: creating a new article for the rebooted series, as you can see if you check a few sections above.
 * That said, I don't think a separate cast article is a good idea, for a couple of reasons: first, that the cast as an entity has no notability outside the show itself (that's also why there's no separate song article, for instance) and secondly, that the issues you raise can all be very readily dealt with via the existing plan of separate articles for the separate series. Right now this article makes a clear distinction based first on the show's own credits and then by # of recurring roles; not perfect, but enough to raise this article to featured status, so I think it's safe to assume it's reasonably easy to follow. Therefore to repeat that process in a new article (with perhaps a paragraph or two re: who's returned and how their roles have changed) would seem to be the simplest way to handle it. Thanks, Shoebox 2   talk  17:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Requests for page protection might be useful.--Coin945 (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Historical accuracy
One episode features a sketch of "The Black Spot" by pirates to mark a man for death. However, the black spot is an entirely fictional literary device invented by the author of Treasure Island. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.73.136 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Horrible Histories (2009 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718204656/http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10 to http://www.barb.co.uk/whats-new/weekly-top-10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131217221315/http://www.rts.org.uk/winners-cda to http://www.rts.org.uk/winners-cda

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) 03:08, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Horrible Histories (2009 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130304121711/http://www.broadcastawards.co.uk/shortlist2012 to http://www.broadcastawards.co.uk/shortlist2012
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513050354/http://www.writersguild.org.uk/news-a-features/general/323-writers-guild-awards-2012-shortlist to http://www.writersguild.org.uk/news-a-features/general/323-writers-guild-awards-2012-shortlist
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222003543/http://www.radiotimes.com/programme/cpsr8/hh-gory-games/episodeguide to http://www.radiotimes.com/programme/cpsr8/hh-gory-games/episodeguide

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) 07:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Horrible Histories (2009 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/tv-radio/television-review-derek-the-matt-lucas-awards-horrible-histories-2235013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405164519/http://www.rts.org.uk/rts-announces-winners-craft-design-awards-20112012 to http://www.rts.org.uk/rts-announces-winners-craft-design-awards-20112012

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) 20:03, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Horrible Histories (2009 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140226215952/http://www.babycow.tv/ to http://www.babycow.tv/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131216182952/http://www.dorkadore.com/film-tv/horrible-histories-and-king-of-what-weve-been-watching/ to http://www.dorkadore.com/film-tv/horrible-histories-and-king-of-what-weve-been-watching/

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) 20:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Greg Jenner
"Jenner" is referenced 4 times in the article without a first mention or credit as historical consultant. I don't know enough about the history to edit, but it's a huge omission. Greg Jenner Illtud (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)