Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series)/Archive 1

Series 4 -> Series 5?
The Series 4 section is now out of date as the series has started to air and episodes from series 4 are appearing now in the 'Episodes' section; however there is a British Comedy Guide news story here about Series 5 having been commissioned. I have tweeted Caroline Norris, one of the producers, to ask if this article is correct. If so, should the Series 4 section be changed to Series 5? And would this be enough for a citation for the planned filming/airing schedule? Musical lottie (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

109.154.122.53's changes
Dear 109.154.122.53, Welcome to Wikipedia. FYI, I am going to revert a couple (1, 2) of your edits as they seem to be mistakes. And I will build upon this one to improve the article. Regards. Open4D (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Episode summaries
I have added two external links to the permanent pages at BBC Programmes for the two series. I note that (presumably) the BBC's episode summaries appear to have been copied to the article's 'Episodes' section. I guess this counts as fair use? (Or for all I know the BBC might release these to the public domain anyway; certainly, they should, IMO.) Open4D (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Name
I suppose this article's name is no longer correct, now that it also covers a 2nd 'season' in 2010. The Horrible Histories (TV series) page links to this one and to a 2001 animated series. Perhaps we should change this to Horrible Histories (live-action TV series)? (And maybe the other one to Horrible Histories (animated TV series), although I actually don't think that's necessary.) Open4D (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The 2009 is fine because it just refers to the year of debut - see Naming conventions (television). When I split the articles, I avoided going with 'animated' and 'live action' because of the possibility another either animated or live action series could be made in future, whereas the 2001 and 2009 debuts will remain unique to these series. I've no particular objection to moving them if you think it would be a better means of disambiguation, though. Frickative  12:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I do personally think it would be slightly better, but had I known about the 'year of debut' convention I wouldn't have mentioned this. I now suggest leaving things as they are.  Ta.  Open4D (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

HH TV (live action)

 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00kvq4g/sign/Horrible_Histories_Episode_8/
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/horriblehistories/
 * http://www.google.com.au/search?q=bbc+horrible+histories+tv&hl=en&tbs=vid:1&tbo=u&ei=64PDS67EFo3gsQPT37HPAw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CB8QqwQwAw,
 * http://www.liontv.com/London/Productions/Horrible-Histories,
 * http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1400819/,
 * http://www.abc.net.au/abc3/shows/6506.htm,
 * http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/horrible_histories/,
 * http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2009/03_march/26/horrible.shtml,
 * http://en.sourcews.com/horrible-histories-back-second-run-cbbc,
 * http://www.comedy.co.uk/guide/tv/horrible_histories/ --Coin945 (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Errors?
I've noticed in one episode that there is an error, as they say a fact that isn't true. Could someone add an errors section or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.217.218 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Care to share which fact you believe is wrong? NKTP (talk) 11:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Suffragete Song citation needed
I have placed a citation needed next to this song as my personal feelings were more along the lines of Girls Aloud Harry Hayfield (talk) 10:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit puzzled as to where the source of the song genres is. If it's the episodes themselves I think pinning a genre on some of them may involve a judgement call that constitutes original research.Rankersbo (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * To be perfectly honest, this entire page is teaming with so much original research and fancruft that getting rid of it all would leave hardly any article. It is a huge undertaking that I have been hesitant to do on my own.--Coin945 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Ben Willbond
Why does it not mention that he played John Snow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSUyNWPs6qs&feature=related — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.144.198 (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Done.--Cocolacoste (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If we're adding in mini-episodes now......
...Then perhaps a mention of this: would do nicely.--Coin945 (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant source

 * FULL SESSION - Horrible Histories: A Masterclass--Coin945 (talk) 10:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Horrible Histories discography
Have the Horrible Histories songs been successful enough to warrant a "Horrible Histories discography" page?--Coin945 (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Being careful with primary sources
We need to be a bit careful using primary sources such as interviews, Q&As, direct quotes and such. WP prefers secondary sources (biographies, essays, articles, text books etc). The current article is tending to précis what was said in interview with the cast and crew, which isn't really the idea behind an encyclopaedic article. I think it's ok to add in certain quotes here and there, but we should remember this is supposed to present a neutral, objective, semi-scholastic synopsis of the programme. It's useful to link to the primary material, so that readers can go off and investigate that material for themselves. Span (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I completely agree with you. Because I find videos easier to get through than long articles, that's why I've been focusing on them, but there's lots more info to cover, and if you'd like to scout for some secondary/tertiary sources and add some info to the articles, that would be much appreciated. I think an "an artist knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add but when there is nothing left to take away" attitude is the best way to go, so don't be shy to tighten up the prose that's already there if you so choose.--Coin945 (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. Span (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Song listing
There is a lot of listing going on in the article. I am wondering about the virtue of splitting of the HH songs into a new article. Span (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough, I was just thinking that. I was going to worry about the logistics of making the table after finishing this edit, but as I'm not very good at making tables if you'd like to give it a crack, go ahead. :) The other lists will have to be culled sooner or later but I'm fearful of the backlash. I wonder if there's a horrible histories wiki...--Coin945 (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Span, just found this. It's made me wonder if we should scrap the awards/nominations section and opt for a List of Horrible Histories accolades page - table and all. It seems like there's a lot of prose not saying very much, and tbh it's quite hard to navigate through at the moment. If you want to keep the prose, we can always use this info to make it much more concise.--Coin945 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not great at tables either. If anyone has backlash feelings arising, they can mention them here. Maybe give it a couple of weeks before splitting off lists. I tend to think that lists for awards works better than prose, if it's just a matter of noting who gave what for which project. I would say that the lists, other than songs, make sense on this page. Songs do too but would stand alone as an article. Span (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you not think things like the list of every single character an actor has played (from iconic recurring characters to obscure one-off characters), and listing how often every single period is featured is a tad excessive?--Coin945 (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

'White' figures from history
The Anglo-centric section currently comments on historical consensus suggesting that certain figures from the show were 'white'. Greek sources place Aesop's birth in modern day Turkey, Cleopatra's in Egypt (North Africa) and Hannibal's in modern day Tunsia (North Africa). I think the term 'white' is not meaningful in this context (if it ever is) as it seems to be being used to mean 'not black'. Span (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ahh.. interesting point. It is either due to the terminology given by the historical consultant in that Masterclass clip, or a cockup on my part. I'm fairly sure it is the former.--Coin945 (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it the point is clear enough as is now without the article getting into fudge. Span (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've found the part of the video talking about that. I'll just watch it and get back to you.--Coin945 (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. He says "they were all probably white" and talks about making Hannibal Middle Eastern. I think he's using the term "white" lightly. White actors were bronzed up for the role, but they were white nonetheless. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTS-LKNs3w4)--Coin945 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah. You're right. Your re-edit is good. :)--Coin945 (talk) 06:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Current editing drive

 * 'Jenner says 'most historians I know are absolutely obsessed with the show', because it "promotes their area" and explains that it can be both fun and interesting, rather that the "worthy and useful" field for academics alone.'

I don't think that Jenner's opinion of what most historians that he knows has much bearing on anything much.


 * However, the show does struggle with getting the balance right, as the comedy will often have to be compromised due to historical inaccuracy. When being questioned how accurate sources from the past actually are, Jenner explained that "history is not what happened in the past. The past is what happened [and] history is how we interpret that".

This speaks too much on behalf of the show. It's giving undue weight to various opinions of the crew. Jenner's above quote doesn't say anything that isn't already covered. I think it gets too close to the primary source and the voice of the show's people. Let's try and keep the tone encyclopaedic. Span (talk) 18:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Span (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Span, I'm positive we could find similar information (i.e. there is a constant battle between comedy and historical accuracy & the show succeeds in making a traditionally 'boring' topic fun) in third-party sources. These two points seem like no-brainers for the series, and I think a quick search for articles on the series would show these point brought up again and again. As i was using a primary source at the time, and found those parts particularly useful, I added them along with that particular source, with the intention of swapping the info with more reliable sources later on, or using them to support arguments made elsewhere. I do agree with you, but i think, at least for now, they make true statements, if perhaps a little WP:UNDUE.--Coin945 (talk) 19:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Battle between history and comedy: "No one seems to question that the show is entertaining, but is it good history? Dan Snow, the TV historian, says it doesn't need to be both and we should celebrate it for what it is: "It's wonderfully exciting to watch. It has such a great sense of the past. It's fun, harmless stuff. But it isn't a serious look at the past. It's one step above Blackadder, but that's fine: the Victorians fictionalised their history. We shouldn't try to dress it up as brilliant history. For example, the Four Georges song is great, but George III was only mentally ill for a short period of his reign. It plays to stereotypes, but it's fantastic as entry-level history.""For children, Horrible Histories is an exciting aid to engage with the guts and gore of the past, but there are more sophisticated, populist ways of getting people involved in history than this." http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/mar/17/horrible-histories-huge-hit--Coin945 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Span


 * Making history fun: "Horrible Histories is the best history we've ever done. It looks at the role of women, social history, attitudes to authority and class. We've done the foundation of the Anglican church and the American civil war. It's incredibly dense and factual. My eight-year-old said to me after watching one sketch: 'So, that's what the Restoration was.'" http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2011/mar/17/horrible-histories-huge-hit, "ingenious 'making history look less crap' operation" http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2013/may/25/horrible-histories-is-back --Coin945 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Span


 * There's also a brilliant site that includes valuable info in both those topics. So the primary source can be used in conjuction with these.--Coin945 (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Much of the article is now an interview with HH staff. That is not the business of WP. It's not the an encyclopaedic tone, it doesn't follow WP:PSTS and it doesn't present a particularly neutral or scholarly point of view. Span (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)'


 * As you can see from the article history, I've added a lot more third party sources to the article. I shall information from the 3 sources above to help give the article some neutrality. (for e.g. many sources quesiton the historical accuracy of the show, or whether it is actually encouraging them to get excited about history as opposed to giving them entertainment and fickle trivia).--Coin945 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Span's comments here. This article, well-referenced though it is, is anything but encyclopedic and, at times, reads like an essay (especially the "Themes" section). It also looks like a mere transcription of the FULL SESSION conference – thus reflecting, as Span said, just the opinion of the show's makers – and a compilation of everything – every fucking thing no matter how irrelevant – written slash said about HH. It contains the kind of trivial stuff fans will be looking for, but for a lay reader it's just gush. And there are more problems that I'll list below, for clarity's sake.
 * With all those quotes scattered all over, it has become a real quotefarm. I've spotted at least one paragraph made up just of quotes: "The Guardian notes "Horrible Histories real talent is just how good it is at lampooning popular culture...It plays things with surprising subtlety – never making the pop culture allusion the focus of the sketch, but simply a means to an end".[29] The Daily Mail says the show is "genius at lampooning popular culture".[26]". Two sources used to back up the same statement – not commenting on why would someone use that lousy rag as a reliable source.
 * Doing an info dump so not a priority.--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, well now i've finished the info dump, and have taken time away to think clearly, i can answer this properly. I personally find paraphrasing a very difficult thing to do. To say the exact same thing without using the exact same words, or alternatively to use different words without straying into WP:OR territory has always seemed like an extremely conplicated thing to do. When tossing up between those two, I deemd quotes to be the lesser of two evils. This problem can start to be fixed up now.--Coin945 (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Way too many YouTube links. The FSESSION one is OK, in that it's been posted by an "official" YT channel, but the others run afoul of WP:YOUTUBE.
 * The video clips are themselves notable. I just linked to a youtube version as i was short of time. All that needs to be done is for it to be resourced to the CBBC website (which i cant access as i live outside of the UK).--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it that this and this gem are on the CBBC website.
 * OH sorry.. I was referring to the behind the scenes featurettes. Obviously the BAFTA awards will link back to the BAFTA ceremony itself, while the official interview can be sourced accordingly.--Coin945 (talk) 12:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Though the youtube link itself wasnt notable, i knew the piece of media was. And I didnt want to lose it in case i had to go back for more. So used the youtube link as the temporary source.--Coin945 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Twisted statements:
 * 1) Lead: "many of its musical numbers have become viral hits". R Times simply states "Perfect viral-video material" . (unattributed quotation, btw).
 * That can easily be changed. I quickly added a bunch of text to the lead to give it some substance. Yes, this particular statement turned out to be a tad false. No

biggy.--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, after some thought, I relaise that statement was in fact warranted: "some of the most popular sketches and songs from the show have attracted more than half a million hits each on [it]". - Popularity section--Coin945 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Historical accuracy: "It adds that Tristram Hunt, the historian and Labour MP (who had not seen the programme) said: "For children, Horrible Histories is an exciting aid to engage with the guts and gore of the past, but there are more sophisticated, populist ways of getting people involved in history than this'". Well, that's not what the article sez: read carefully and you'll note that he said what he said about HH with Stephen Fry.
 * HH with SF is a repackage of HH, so i imagine this statement applies to HH as well. If not, no biggy. Simply copy-paste it over to the HH: SF article.--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you read the article? Or rather, have you understood it? And yes, biggy. And you take it out, 'cause it was you who wrote it.
 * I did read the article. I did understand it. Look, I don't understand why everyone seems really on edge at the moment. (maybe things are getting lost in translation but...). We are working as a team. I've worked really hard on this article. Yes, it's nowhere near perfect but compared to what it was like before, I'd say it's a massive improvement. I would love you to use your expertise and make it even better, rather than having a bit of a snap at me about everywhere i've cocked up.--Coin945 (talk) 12:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You may have read it. You may have understood it. But you're misquoting. The article reads: "Tristram Hunt expressed concerns in December about Horrible Histories being adapted for primetime BBC1, describing it as "cartoon content for adults" (from "How Horrible Histories became a huge hit", emphasis mine). Coco Lacoste logged out. --190.244.99.222 (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Since you were the one who identified the misquotation, I would have thought you'd be the one to take it out. I did a huge amount of editing a relatively short space of time so there were a few mistakes here and there. But telling me where they are seems like a much less effective method than just being WP:Bold. But fine. I'll do it myself...--Coin945 (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just reread it: "While admitting he has not yet seen the programme, Tristram Hunt, the historian and Labour MP, expressed concerns in December about Horrible Histories being adapted for primetime BBC1, describing it as "cartoon content for adults"". To be fair, it was confusngly worded..--Coin945 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Modernity Uh? Be careful with this word: modern times are not necessarily modern times(nor are they modern times).
 * hmmm.. interesting. i see your point. do you have a better term we can use, perhaps?--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Nincety-finceties (to mention but a few): "The show also has its own YouTube channel", "Actors have to be on set at 6:30, and filming commences at 8:00", "Ben says "hot sausage" often" "The actors are very recognisable to the general public without costumes or makeup on, despite often being heavily dressed up on the show in period costumes. Rickard once denied being a character on the show, saying "no, no, he's got a beard" and so on.
 * Doing an info dump so didnt want to get rid of anything in case it came in useful. BTW, what a bizarre turn of phrase. Had to wiki it.. :D--Coin945 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Finished info dump, so can get onto matters such as these. As i said in the discusison on my talk page, i am an inclusionist. I have this dislike for losing information. So if I had to choose between adding trivial info only for it to be deleted later, or not including enoguh, and then laboriously having to trek the internet for more, I'm always going to go for the former. It's so much easier to just get rid of the trivial statements than add important ones. Besides, you never know what's going to be important or trivial until yoou see the entire article. There are some articles that are filled with relatively trivial info, but thats because they have a much slimmer scope, or are on a topic that there isn't much info about (for example that FA on an Egyptian cat). Once again, i totally agree with you. So, let's get to work! :)--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * MOS compliance: too many "wee", "poo" (not in quotation marks), "savvy", "kids", etc, etc.
 * Doing an info dump so not a priority.--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Whose priorities? Yours, by the look of it.
 * Exactly. That's what I said, no?--Coin945 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Those can easily be exchanged for more encyclopedic words. :) I hadn't even realised that was an issue. Thankyou for bringing it up.--Coin945 (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * All the references in the "Awards" section have been changed to "Retrieved 2013-06-18". This is a lack of respect for former contributors.
 * It took me a hell of a lot of work to get that section to that state. You point never even occured to me. Obviously, we can simply copy/paste the references from the prose version to the list version.--Coin945 (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And it probably took a hell of a lot of work to the ones who searched for that material. Of course it didn't occur to you! Funny how you use either the imperative or 1st person plural when it comes to polish things up.
 * You're almost acting as if I deliberately went out of my way to ruin the work of others who came before me, rather than having an honest attempt at my very first Awards and nominations table after hours of fumbling through code, and felt mightily good at my achievement. What you are talking about what the last thing on my mind.--Coin945 (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

In short: Coin945, while your beavering away at this article is certainly praiseworthy, and some additions really good, try to discern what is significant and what isn't. And try not to be on the defensive. And provide an edit summary, especially when making such drastic changes – 'tis just basic courtesy.

Hope this helps. Thank you for your time. --190.244.99.222 (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Coin, you've also reverted my changes without discussion, even though I have brought them to the discussion page. You are not using WP mark up for show titles etc. You are using quotes without saying where they come from, such as 'The show is also "scatalogically obsessed", reveling in jokes and facts involving various bodily functions.' (American spelling). By not using edit summaries or mark up and not respecting the sourcing guidelines, you are just creating lots of work for other editors. This is looking like page ownership. I suspect it would be better to copy this page and drop it into a blog, where you can use whatever house style you like. This WP article is not a blog or a promotional puff piece for the show. As I have recommended before, it's best to imagine the article being read by someone who hates the show. Would they find bias glow in the article writing? Can you imagine the content and tone in Britannica or the Oxford Companion to European History? Span (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am very aware of all this. WP:POV and WP:OR are some of the hardest things to take note of. I've pretty much been doing an info dump, going from source to source and using any information I think is important enough. Once I finish doing that (i have one major article left), then we can think clearly about the state of the article and work out what needs to be done. In some cases, I had no source but I wanted to make a point about the show before i forgot it so popped in there without a source More often taht not, i have found a source saying the exact same thing i wrote in the article, so i merely sourced it. Obviously we can get into all the issues later on, but as I said, for now I'm just doing the research phase. If you can find some articles shitting over the series, plase don't hesisiate to let me know. So far I havent found any.--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if what you wrote isn't ready for mainspace, use the bloody sandbox. That's what those pretties are for, you know? Besides, following at least MOS guidelines isn't that complicated. Once again, Span is right: other editors aren't here to clean up after you. Oh, and stop making excuses – we're all adults here. --190.244.99.222 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second.. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline, and it is a collaborative process. I am doing this one step at a time, and if anyone wants to join in, then go ahead, This isn't "my" article. It seems silly to work on it in a sandbox and then upload it here after it's perfect. That's not how Wikipedia does things.--Coin945 (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And FYI, I see no reason why we can't have a assembly line going here. It's a hell of a lot of work to do everything by oneself, so splitting it up into researcher/copyeditor seems like a pretty good way of doing things. It's not about someone cleaning up all the sloppiness of the other. It's about the two working in tandem to ease each others' workload.--Coin945 (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And I don't see what the whole one-sided thing is coming from anyway. I've got some sources that talk about the show is a negative light. Many sources criticise the historical innacuracy of the show, and say it will not make kids interested in history. One source hated the captions that appear on screen, and it shouldnt take long to aquire sources that badmouth Rattus Rattus as well. And I literally spent half an hour a couple of days ago trying an endless series of keywords trying to find some hate for the show... but honest to god nothing came up.. :/--Coin945 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the sources waxing lyrical about the programme (nobody is saying that, and I know there are no reviews slagging HH off) but how these sources are treated.
 * "Collaborative process", says the guy who keeps reverting and dismisses other people's comments as "no biggy"? Jesus! Give me a break! As for the sandbox, it may seem silly to you, in which case I suggest you read What is an article?. Anyway, we are talking in circles here, so off I bugger –I'm just an IP. Keep up ballsing things up er... the spiffing work! -- Coco Lacoste  talk  15:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * (IP was me logged out, I'm on a wikibreak)
 * ...Of course "no biggy" was written by the person who talks about the "Collaborative process". It's putting words in my mouth to say I am dismissing and reverting by doing that. In the grand scheme of things, the stuff you're bringing up are trivialities - things only worried about after the core content is in place. And by the way, at least one of those reverts was because i was using the "expand citations" to, well, expand the citations, but you had deleted the section in the meantime so it popped back once my edit completed. You seem to accuse me of maliciously hacking at this article with complete disregard of anybody else. This is simply not true. I've poured my heart and soul into it. I'm so proud of what I've been able to achieve. And i cant wait for us to continue this work.--Coin945 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Coin, I think you lost sight of the fact that this is a page is viewed by around 30 000 people per month. It is a live page with substantial traffic. It very often happens that the best intentions to come back and fix things, get trampled by real life and an article gets left in a mess. I understand that you see the article overhaul as a personal project you have committed to, and that is laudable. But there are a lot of inaccuracies and MOS problems. I certainly cannot commit to have a week free in a month's time dedicated to clearing up the problems.
 * Come on... you're acting like this is the worst article in the whole world. I really think everyone's being a tad too hyperbolous. yes, it has a couple of problems, but as I said, no biggy. We'll get through it. No need to get fired up.From my perspective, you are attacking a good article simply because it doesn't match the incredibly high standards you have set for yourself with FA's. Regardless of whatever problems it may have, it is still a good article.--Coin945 (talk) 13:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "I've pretty much been doing an info dump, going from source to source and using any information I think is important enough. Once I finish doing that (i have one major article left), then we can think clearly about the state of the article and work out what needs to be done."

I also understand that when we editors are deep in source research we can lose track of context. You are getting loud messages (above) that the current MO doesn't work. You are reverting other editors' work without discussion. You are not taking article feedback on board.
 * Now that I have finished the research phase, i am totally committed to fixing up the articles' problems. but as already stated, i find it rather hard to fix WP:OR and WP:NPOV.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * "For now I'm just doing the research phase. If you can find some articles shitting over the series, please don't hesitate to let me know."

Again, I think you have got got into OWN territory. WP is a co-editing model. "It seems silly to work on it in a sandbox". If you want to do lots of research, compile it, fill in sources and finesse style, spelling and references later, this is precisely what sandboxes are for. "If anyone wants to join in, then go ahead." You have reverted my edits (that took a lot of time) assuming that yours take precedence. I know all your edits are made in good faith, but I suggest you back up and slow down. There is a team commenting here and you appear not to be listening. Span (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming this article. And if it apepars that way, please know I am not doing it intentionally. I am not using this as any sort of defense, but i am a bit of a hoarder when it comes to information. so please dont take my reinclusion of the info you deleted as anything personal. I just didnt want to lose it, in case it somehow beca,e useful again in the context of the completed article. I Fully understand what you are saying, and looking at these comments which have been piling up during my absence, I do feel rather guilty for not responding while editing. But as i said, i was in a one-track mind.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am personally not saying that the article needs more negative reviews. I'm saying it needs to be more encyclopedic. Span (talk)
 * Ahhh yes. Now, this, I can honestly say i got genuinely confused with. I must admit this is what i thought you were getting at. But now i understand you were critiquing the much larger problem of neutrality.--Coin945 (talk) 14:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed text
"User DAVIE commented on a forum regarding the Morrissey pastiche song about Charles Dickens, "Made me cringe!". In the British Comedy Forums, Buyon Ferry wrote: "The jokes are broad to the point of cringe worthy and the songs are worse", and later added "Watching with your kids, fine but if you watch this on your own and laugh out loud you need to expand on what comedy you watch. The songs are shockingly cringe worthy". Aaron typed: "I have a mixed relationship with Horrible Histories: I love both comedy and history, but it's neither weighty enough to satisfy my history bone, nor funny enough to really make me laugh much...[also] I have to admit I'm not much of a fan of the songs"

Coin, in my short (and not very productive) wikicareer I've never ever removed content minutes after it had been added. But the chunk of text you've just stuffed into the article is a no-no. WP:UGC and WP:NEWSBLOG establish that under no circumstances should user's comments be used as sources. This is not my or Span's opinion: it's a policy and what you did is utterly unacceptable. And has nothing to do with you being (as you've repeatedly said) a bit pushed for time or focusing on research: it's Wikipedia ABC.

Please, slow down, read the article as if it hadn't been written by you and try to gain some perspective. This thread is getting too long and boring. Coco Lacoste under the IP cloak--190.244.99.222 (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. I know. I was wrong. What else can I say..? I even said it in the edit summary: I was clutching at straws. I'm not sure what compelled me to do it. For what it's worth, I was about to delete it, only to find you already had. So it wasn't a serious edit.--Coin945 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

PS, Hi, Span, nice to meet you. Thanks ever so much for stepping in.


 * Coco, thank you for your contributions. You mention in the edit summary that you won't be editing the article again. I would encourage you to keep the article on your watchlist. Your views are valuable. Sometimes the process can feel frustrating, but talking things out is part of the WP model. Coin, from your edits this afternoon it appears you are taking no notice whatsoever of our comments. Span (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Made a whole comment but it didn't save for some reason. My my phone so will be brief. Didn't ignore. Didn't even see. Been editing. Worked really hard. Hope not being seen as insubordinate or a vandal. Want this article to be FA as much as anyone. All it needs is some copy editing to get rid of trivial, redundant, quoted, or hyperbolic content.--Coin945 (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Span, It should have been "latest", sorry – the perils of editing while sleep deprived. Coco Lacoste --190.244.99.222 (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Look, guys, I'm not the most amazing editor in the world. But I really love this series so wanted to give it the best crack I good. I'm sorry you both are so dissapointed in my work. I would be honoured to have you guys help me out and give me some tips. Your "guilty until proven innocent" attitude saddens me. As I said before, problems with WP:OR and WP:NPOV are some of the hardest to fix. I would have hoped you guys would me able to collaborate, rather than have a go at me. As I said, that's not how Wikipedia works.--Coin945 (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I can only suggest that you please read WP:INDISCRIMINATE. There is nothing wrong with editing the article for a favorite series but it can cloud your judgment over what is important to you and to what is encyclopedic. As I look at the article I fear that it is moving farther away from FA status. If you feel that the suggestions above are unfair I would caution you that the editors who will perform the FA examination may be much harsher. Take this for what you will but these editors are trying to help you. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think my love for the series has clouded my judgement. Perhaps it has. I know both Span and Coco are only trying to help. *sigh*. It is true, I haven't been the most courteous person in the world, and looking back at my comment here i have jumped to a few conclusions as well. I do respect all of you for all your hard work, and your commitment to this article, and while it was never my intention, I acknowledge that in your eyes i am not a very competent editor - due to 'ignoring', so on and so forth. I am committed to making this article the best it can be.--Coin945 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Coin, I'm not sure you have actually read our comments above. I think that you will find many hundreds of words above given to an attempt to collaborate. To say this is an "guilty until proven innocent attitude" is disingenuous at best. You have not discussed the points put above about not using mark up, overquoting, reverting other editors' work, not using any edit summaries. You say the article 'has a couple of problems'. As Marnette says, the article is moving rapidly away from FA, not towards it. Have a look at GA/FAs Only Fools and Horses, Last of the Summer Wine, The Simpsons, The Powerpuff Girls, Red Dwarf and Degrassi: The Next Generation and see how much direct quotation /primary sourcing they use. Span (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I know. And I'm sorry. It all just kinda got to me. Thankyou for everything you've done. You're right. I should have avoided "mark up, overquoting, reverting other editors' work, not using any edit summaries". I gave explanations to a few of those things above. Nevertheless, while i added that information, yes, it should have worked a lot harder to add finesse. Some stem from my inclusionist ways. Quotes vs. attempt at paraphrasing resulting in either accusations of WP:OR or loss of information. Reverting in order to ensure potentially important information was not lost. The Simpsons is actually a good article to choose. It became FA in 2007, and having a look at it (I had a big simpsons phase a couple of months ago), i was shocked by the apparent scarcity of information to be found there. Tiny paragraphs dedicated to sections that i thought deserved their own articles. I have this thing about the loss of information.... Others were just due to the rapid pace at which i was working. I didn't even think to do edit summaries, and rather than stopping abruptly and tediously wikimarking information that may have gotten substantially changed or removed completely later, i charged ahead. I am fully committed to working on this article for the better. --Coin945 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Coin, you seem not to understand that the main problem with this article is its content. Apart from the points already brought up, most of what you've added is fancrufty waffle and many headings and subheadings simply uncalled for. The current version of HH is a reasonably well-written piece but not an encyclopedic article. And it needs much, much more than "some copy editing to get rid of trivial, redundant, quoted, or hyperbolic content", as you say. Your enthusiasm is commendable, but you are going about this in the wrong way.
 * I don't know what MarnetteD and Span (and others, should they pop along) think, but I'd get the article to a previous version (this one p'haps?): at 12035 words, it sort of clashes with WP:LENGTH – Coin can sandbox this one to work on the salvageable bits. Coco Lacoste (sorry for not logging in, but I'm not at home) --190.244.99.222 (talk) 08:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a good idea, Coco. I think that's a good place to roll back to. Span (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really want to work on this in a sandbox. When things go into my sandbox they disappear and never end up getting worked on. Thoguh it shouldn't make a difference, I work on things a lot harder when they're in the mainspace. Plus it gives others the ability to work on the article too.--Coin945 (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So... rough ballpark - how much of this article is actually salvegeable? And what sections missing entirely need to be added?--Coin945 (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Moving on
I thought I would introduce a break (from the very long discussions above) so that the conversations stay readable. Thank you Coin for all your responses above and taking the comments on board. Edit summaries are super helpful for other editors to follow the rationale of changes. I'd be interested to hear from Coco (and others) on next steps. Span (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's hard to know quite where to begin editing. Obviously not lacking content here! But it needs some pruning and/rearranging. For a start, there's separate sections on songs and music (though both include a link to List of Horrible Histories songs). Inlittlestars (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Coco (above) suggested doing a major rollback to early in June. It's probably worth holding off editing until we have decided a course of action, I'd say. Span (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * When (s)he suggested that, I was 'ignoring' (not really, but we've already established that) you, and you were both concerned about the state of the article, and if it would just remain in that condition forever. The situation has changed. I'm back, and User:Inlittlestars has already done some great work. I see no reason why editing should be held off for discussion on an idea that I think is obsolete.--Coin945 (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I encourage to wait for consensus before shooting off. You may not see the point in rolling back, but others do. To ignore consensus again will just take us straight back to where we were. Span (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I proposed that we roll back to an earlier version because working on the current one is more bother than it is worth. Even though the introduction and the Eras and civilisations section are better, the massive amount of superfluous information added in the recent batch of edits makes almost impossible to scoop the relevant bits out. Honestly, I don't see the point in copy-editing/rearranging material that will be eventually cut out. I don't mean to sound harsh, but I've read this mammoth article like 15 times and the more I read it, the less I know how to tackle it. It's an intricate jungle of loosely-connected sentences, many of which simply follow the pattern "X said 'quote' and so 'quote'". Coco Lacoste (sorry again for being logged out, but not at home and not on my notebook) --190.244.99.222 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I'm going to have to agree with a rollback. The more I look at the article and try to figure out how to go about editing it, the harder and more daunting it seems. Inlittlestars (talk) 10:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I simply fail to see how the article is "an intricate jungle of loosely-connected sentences". Please can you explain further? Also, I don't see why it is so hard to cut out the superflouos bits. I only kept them in while editing because I didn't know what would be relevant in the context of the completed article. But now that you have all the information in front of your very eyes (15 times!), it should be easy for you to pick out the bits that are superfluous trivia, no? And it's fairly easy to paraphrase quotes - I'm just not very good at it myself.--Coin945 (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Familiarity with subject matter

 * Also (random point), can I just ask: how many of you are familiar with (or like) the TV series or book series? I do think it would be good to get the opinion of someone who is deeply knowledgeable or passionate about the show, because perhaps that will answer questions in regard to navigating through this 'jungle'.--Coin945 (talk) 13:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've sent messages to the wikiprojects listed at the top of the page, plus any others that i thought were appropriate, in order to get views from people who may be more familiar with the subject matter. Any who wish to reply should get back to us shortly.--Coin945 (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely familiar with the TV show; that's why I started taking an interest in the editing of the page, to be honest.Inlittlestars (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

move request
hello? is it possible to move this article to not include the "2009" bit? I was thinking of making it say "Horrible Histories (CBBC)"? Visokor (talk) 10:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. 88.104.243.163 (talk) 15:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Problem: it wasn't only shown on CBBC, an adult 'Best of' version presented by Stephen Fry was shown on main adult channel BBC One, along with select other repeats of the original series. I'd strongly suggest a move to simply "Horrible Histories (TV series)".Shoebox2 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with Shoebox2 on this. Plain "TV series" suffices and is clearer (many people outside the UK may not know what CBBC is). -- Coco Lacoste  (talk)  23:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is something that was apparently discussed a few years ago: Talk:Horrible Histories (2009 TV series). I think I would have to agree that the 2009 keeps it distinct from the 2001 animated series. Inlittlestars (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

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.”
 * "“You don’t write a lot differently [though] you take the swearing out and certain subjects you can’t talk about."
 * “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”


 * 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.”


 * 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".


 * 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.”"
 * "i dont want anyone to ever say 'its not as good as it used to be'".


 * 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) 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.


 * 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."


 * 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." --> 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.”"


 * 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"


 * 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.”"


 * 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"'''


 * 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


 * 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."
 * 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."
 * "The show has done for history what JK Rowling did for reading".
 * 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)

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."
 * "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."
 * "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."
 * "our aim was to grow love for the brand and increase online use, particularly among 6-12 year olds"
 * "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."
 * "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."
 * "“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"
 * 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."
 * ,, <--  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."
 * 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"
 * 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)

Would like to work on the songs article next...
I've already posted as much to the relevant talkpage, but am assuming interested editors might also be found here: As it turns out I've got lots more spare time coming up this holiday break, so would like to spend some of it doing a similarly exhaustive cleanup of the song article. I'm confident I can do that article justice as well, esp. since it appears to have many of the same issues as this one initially had (with the addition of a serious lack of references... and/or problems with the existing ones, including links to Facebook).

Barring any serious objection, I thought to begin work later this week and have the completed rewrite up within a few days past that. Thanks, Shoebox 2   talk  00:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


 * ETA: Actually, on further, more serious review, I'm thinking my first question should be do we even need a standalone song article? Again, I don't mean to denigrate anyone's work here... and believe me, I get that the songs are an important part of the series... but important enough to be handled on the level of a list of episodes, or characters? Most of the songs don't even have anything resembling official titles, and many of the parody inspirations are never going to be anything but unsourced guesses. I can and will make it all tidy and readable -- and probably provide decent enough guesses -- but unless I'm missing some precedent here (quite possible) it's still going to seem fancruft-y to me. Shoebox 2   talk  04:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I totally get what you're saying, and perhaps Wikipedia will be better off without the list (I'm sure you'll make up your mind after analysing it. Perhaps the article could be renamed and refocused to Music in Horrible Histories. In any case, many of the "guesses" can reasonably accurately be sourced from web reviews by guardian, telegraph etc, and also via primary sources like the Masterclass. Worth bearing in mind. :)--Coin945 (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure; most of those will still be guesses, albeit a bit more informed I suppose. Meanwhile, the topic of Music in Horrible Histories is already more than adequately covered by the section in this article, that's the problem. However, the current standalone song list has lasted this long despite everything, so I'll go with that consensus for now. It's not such a complex project that I'll be crushed if it's deleted afterwards.
 * That said: Coin, I apologise for the bluntness, but since you do seem to need things spelled out: I do not want your help. (Especially not after encountering those Facebook cites; let's just leave it at that.) If I find you trying to 'help' anyway by making edits to my sandbox or to its talkpage, in any way shape or form, it will be immediately reported to an admin as per previous warning. Shoebox 2   talk  14:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

(Outdenting for new idea) Sorry for posting my entire train of thought like this... hopefully it's less irritating than random huge surprise!edits. At any rate, the more time I spend trying to figure out what the song article needs, the more the fancruftiness just really, really makes me itch. I've looked into a few Wiki procedures (including WP:BOLD), and had a good long think besides, and have come up with what I think is the best-case scenario:

Shoebox 2  talk  19:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Everything noteworthy that possibly needs to be said about Horrible Histories music in general has already been said in, or can be added to, the 'Music' section in the main article.
 * 2) Everything else of interest -- by which I specifically mean the song titles, main performers and parody inspiration if any, and possibly the lyricist if not Dave Cohen -- is already in, or can easily be moved into, the List of Episodes, which is in fact a worthwhile spinoff article that I'd much rather be working on anyway (and frankly have always been irritated, when I've checked it in the past, that the songs aren't easier to find). Like so: Song: Cut-Throat Celts: 'Boudicca' (hard rock parody) Martha Howe-Douglas, Mathew Baynton, Jim Howick and Ben Willbond
 * 3) Therefore, unless there's serious objection, I'm proposing to formally merge the song article into the list article and go on from there as described above.
 * 4) I will of course follow all steps as outlined on WP:MERGE, repost this on the song article's talkpage, and wait for response until the holidays are over before doing anything rash so as not to be accused of railroading anything. It'll mean finding other uses for my holiday spare time, but I think that can be managed. :)


 * Well assuming that I'm the one who will most likely be the biggest obstacle to this merge (not being high and mighty - just making an informed assumption), I just want to say that I am in full support for this idea. The song page was always destined to be fancrufty, and I mostly just created it to keep the fanboys and girls happy, so they wouldnt add that stuff to the main page for the TV show. I think you should just be WP:Bold. :)--Coin945 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you -- wait. You didn't want people adding fancruft, so you... added an entire page of it? Explicitly so people could add more? *facepalm* Coin, do you by any chance have a background editing TVTropes or similar fan-run wikis? And if not, can I quite sincerely suggest you might really enjoy it? I know for a fact there's at least one HH fan wiki out there just begging for some TLC. It'd at be a much more logical outlet for your editing philosophy.
 * At any rate, thanks again for the explanation, and support, but from the edit history you seem to have inspired at least a few others to recently consider the song list a real page. I'll put the merge notice up for at least a few days past the holiday on the off-chance anyone is seriously invested. Shoebox 2  talk  22:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, it worked. :D. It's a common thing to do when fancrufty material continually clogs up an article - to create an off-shoot specifically for that purpose as a compromise. I cleaned up a lot of the messy fancrufty stuff before the recent rewrite took place. I know how bad it can get. Before the content transfer, the Song List section was continually being tweaked with, and so was all the other trivial stuff. Check out an edition 2 years ago. Not pretty. So yes (side note) my work wasn't the best, but I think it was an improvement over what was there before. And I do think that the article served a purpose - to allow the completed-list philosophy of many of the HH editors to be put to good use. After all, who doesn't love a completed list of the songs in a TV renowned for its music? It was not an attempt at a fancruft article to avoid another. It was faux-fancruft. Something that fans could create to competition in intricate detail, while remaining encyclopedic in its own right. And I think it was on the road to getting there. Whether or not it still deserves a place here is for the public to decide, and I've express my support for your stance on the issue. But I stand by the article's creation at that time and place.--Coin945 (talk) 17:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mm. Something tells me one of us is deeply misunderstanding the concept behind creating an article offshoot, and I'm not at all sure it's me. As for how it was 'getting there'... yeah, sorry, I'm trying to believe your intentions were good, but I keep seeing those Facebook cites still in the supposedly almost-enyclopedic article, six months on. Also, despite your helpful notes to me above demonstrating an awareness of this exact problem, a majority of content based on random fan theories rather than proper citations. (Frankly, the treatment in the article version you linked looks eminently reasonable by comparison.) Coin, I don't know where you got the idea that 'randomly dumping stuff in and hoping someone else will figure it out down the line' was a viable editing philosophy anywhere, but trust me, it isn't. It's demonstrating the exact opposite of respect either for your material or your fellow editors, and it certainly doesn't inspire their respect in turn. Shoebox 2   talk  18:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * To be fair, I didn't add those Facebooks cites and other non-notable ones. In fact, I edited intermittently to fix up references or add a Writers column, and besides that didn't monitor the article at all for a while. So I can't really be blamed for its state. That seems a little like WP:OWN - the idea that because I created it I am ultimately in charge of its maintenance.--Coin945 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * On a side note, would you really find those endless fancrufty lists "eminently reasonable by comparison"? Hmm..--Coin945 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Also can you remind me when I mentioned "randomly dumping" content as my philosophy? I remember mentioning in an edit summary that i was in the process of info-dumping from a source (the masterclass if memory serves) because that was step 1, before step 2 which was copyediting. But that particular phrasing escapes me.--Coin945 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In any case, I understand you are upset and frustrated by what occurred on your sandbox, and despite you not accepting an apology I want to offer one to you regardless. I am truly sorry for offending you and invading your personal editing space, I made a retrospectively silly decision and I hope we can both move past this. I have certainly learnt a lot that I will take with me. After years of editing in isolation - or playfully bouncing off co-writers when working on group projects - it's a very different experience to be challenged by others with opposing views - something which I've had to come to grips with in the Horrible Histories corner of the 'pedia. But I feel now there is a stain on the Coin945 name in your eyes that cant be removed, and that is a shame.. As you have probably seen by now, I've been spending the past few days creating article on the other notable parts of the HH franchise, and buffing up the HH template as a result. I hope that you see me not as an academic scholar & expert editor, nor as a vandal & nuisance, but rather as a person with both flaws and talents like any other, who tries their best to achieve and succeed.--Coin945 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

{Outdenting for final word on subject) Coin, after the incident re: my sandbox, I went through your talkpage archives, and also re-read the discussions here a bit more closely. The quotes around the 'randomly dumping' bit above represent me summarising what I gathered from all that reading, which also fitted neatly with the pattern I'd already noted on the HH articles.

The majority of the discussions clearly show concerned veteran editors repeatedly trying to tell you that your drive-by infodump approach -- what you yourself later acknowledged to me as 'a disease' -- was harmful. Yet in every case you went ahead with it anyway. Then, despite claiming that I was "finally giving the article the TLC it needed since [your] edits", you tried the exact same approach while I was rewriting, to the point of repeatedly invading my personal space over my objections... and then, after (barely) apologising for that, you showed back up on this talkpage with basically the same laundry list of implausible suggestions as you'd tried with me, only with bonus utter goofiness re: possible mentions of how clean the show makes viewers feel. And now this business with the deeply dubious spinoff article you knew from the start might be problematic, but apparently never bothered even to monitor for, let alone fix, obvious issues. (ETA: And we won't even get into your latest note on the marketing discussion, written apparently not long after this latest apology...)

If I am still frustrated, it is with this ongoing pattern of destructive editing behaviour that you clearly would rather endlessly make excuses for than change. And if I am still blunt, it is largely due to ongoing fear that that behaviour will once again overwhelm a lot of hard work on a subject I care deeply about. That said, going forward I'll do my best to remain civil and focus on the issues at hand... but I'm afraid that for awhile at least, my default is going to have to be skepticism. Shoebox 2  talk  20:49, 25 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)