Talk:Victoria (British TV series)/Archive 1

Extended episodes for the US
I'm trying to find a good source for this, but there were media reports in September that the Masterpiece version of Victoria will feature longer episodes than the ITV version (due to the fact PBS doesn't air commercials). 68.146.233.86 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If PBS doesn't have commercials, and ITV does, then the episodes would air quicker, and not be longer. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 13:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not if they have to fill a full 60 minute time slot they won't be. They'd need to add an extra 15 minutes per. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The episodes aired on WGBH PBS Jan Feb 2017 had 51 minutes of core content. So maybe this was the same as ITV orig one hour minus commercials? But if the ITV were really just 46min, then PBS did add about 5min per ep. -71.174.176.136 (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Queen Victoria 1840 assassination attempt

 * www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-10-09/who-tried-to-shoot-queen-victoria-the-real-story-of-the-1840-assassination-attempt
 * Who tried to shoot Queen Victoria?
 * The real story of the 1840 assassination attempt
 * What became of Edward Oxford, the first man who tried to kill Queen Victoria?
 * The Victoria series finale features many exciting plots but the attempted assassination of Jenna Colman's diminutive monarch is among the most dramatic.
 * The real life tale of the attempt on Queen Victoria's life is a rather interesting one, that's just as intriguing as the TV adaptation suggests...
 * On the 10th of June 1840, the then pregnant Queen Victoria was on her daily carriage drive with Prince Albert when two shots were fired at her on Constitution Hill.
 * The assailant was an 18-year-old unemployed Londoner named Edward Oxford, who would go down in history as the first of a number of men who attempted to assassinate the queen.
 * There are a lot of rumours about why Oxford may have attempted to assassinate the queen, one prominent one being that he was under instruction from a political faction called Young England
 * Oxford’s family pleaded insanity on his part and, as they could find no evidence that the guns were loaded with anything other than gunpowder, the jury found him not guilty.
 * He died in 1900, the year before the Queen passed away.

There really was an 1840s political faction called Young England. Edward Oxford claimed to be part of a military society called "Young England" in 1840. Maybe there is some real historic connection? Maybe this is a completely random independent coincidence? It would be good to mention this in the article -- but hard to know just what to say. -71.174.176.136 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Doctor Who references
I am sorry but relating Doctor Who to this show should not be in the opening section.

Jenna Coleman would have finished her contract with BBC Wales and would have had this new show already lined up by her agents.

The show is called "Victoria" and the opening statement about Doctor Who is nothing to do with this show whatsoever and therefore it deserves to be placed in the production section of the article as it is relevant to the ITV production and not a BBC show that she appeared in previously.

Actors go from job to job if successful in their chosen career so they spend the minimal amount of time resting between jobs.

Pam-javelin (talk) 12:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * This series was announced to the public by means of including it in the very same reports that announced Coleman leaving Doctor Who, as her reason for leaving the series was because she took up the role in Victoria. Hence, the two directly relate. If the series had been announced prior to any casting information, and then reports of Coleman taking up the lead role were released, I would be inclined to agree with you. The article is also meant to summarise the article, which it does, now that the same content that you are disputing has been moved to another section of the article. Continuously removing it is edit-warring, no matter if it is "duplicated" - that is the entire purpose of the lead, to duplicate in a short fashion. Leave the WP:STATUSQUO until a WP:CONSENSUS has been formed. --  Alex TW 12:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It is meaningless duplication and - sorry to say this but, a bit "nerdy" and it is not remotely relevant to the opening section about the show that she is currently appearing in.


 * I love Doctor Who and have met Tom Baker and I am looking forward to watching both The Orville & Discovery but these articles need to be neutral, factual and to be quite honest avoid at the time blatant pr stunts as announcing her leaving one show to join another. Pam-javelin (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Your personal opinion on how the content appears (e.g. "nerdy") is irrelevant; we base our content on community consensus, guidelines and policies. You have already been told that the content is most definitely relevant, so I will repeat it for you again: This series was announced to the public by means of including it in the very same reports that announced Coleman leaving Doctor Who, as her reason for leaving the series was because she took up the role in Victoria. If you want to blame PR stunts, blame the reports and ITV for deciding to announce it when they did, not Wikipedia. You also say to avoid them "at the time" - what time is acceptable in your eyes? The series premiered over a year ago, for starters. If you have an issue with the Star Trek-related series as well, you need to take it to their respective talk pages. --  Alex TW 12:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The note about the correspondence of the show's announcement with JC's departure from Doctor Who is marginally appropriate in the production section, and has no business in the lede, and that's without considering the rather troubling grammar. This article is about the show, not Jenna Coleman, and certainly not about what can arguably be viewed as Whovian trivia.  It needs to come out of the lede.  (And you're both edit warring, so let's not be pointing any fingers, either of you.) -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  12:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Please be careful when posting; you completely removed my above comment, and edit conflicts don't overwrite comments, they alert editors, which would indicate a manual overwrite. In reply to yours, I point you to my (now restored) comment above. Yes, it's about the article. That line is noting when the series was announced. (Also, the edit-warring is the attempt to remove it from the lead, when the status quo needs to remain while a discussion is in place. However, editor behaviour belongs on editor talk pages, article disputes on article talk pages.) --  Alex TW 13:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Come on, now Alex, you know perfectly well it takes two to edit war, as you point out to many an editor doing what you've done. Sorry about the over-write; the new system doesn't allow me to scroll on an iPad, so I didn't see what was overwriting.  How about a wee bit of WP:AGF?


 * Returning to the issue at hand, I reiterate: the statement might go in a production or possibly casting section, but it's about Coleman's decision to leave DW corresponding with the new role (i.e. about the actress leaving Doctor Who for a new role), not about the show.  The best place for it is in her article.  But it has no place in the article lede.  There, it's just fancruft.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  15:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello - and without wishing to start an edit war,


 * which should it be because I believe that it is fan based and has no place in the opening section and Alex that does believe that it belongs there so, as a third party Drmargi - which do you think is the right course for the opening section of the article?


 * Apologies to Alex if he is offended - it is not meant a spite or tit for tat.


 * Pam-javelin (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Drmargi is now an involved party, who has expressed their views, so they are not a "third party" as such. If you've wanted that, you should have posted at WP:3O when it was just the two of us.
 * Yes, the article concerning "the actress leaving Doctor Who for a new role" is true; however, at the very same time, it was the first public announcement of the series. The article does both of these at once, announcing the departure and the series. Before the date of 18 September 2015, the series Victoria was not public knowledge. So, yes, it is about the show. See this article. --  Alex TW 11:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * So who then makes a final decision whether to leave it or remove the section from the opening statement?


 * Pam-javelin (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CONSENSUS. And please indent your posts - see how Drmargi and I are doing so. --  Alex TW 13:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's outdent this thing. Pam, given that you and I are in agreement that the opening statement is more about Jenna Coleman and Doctor Who than it is about Victoria, we can reasonably remove, or at least edit, the comment. Alex, the article you link to only serves to strengthen my point: it's about JC not about Victoria. The fact she left DW the same day Victoria was announced is about her, and her career, and belongs in an article about her. The only detail relevant to this article is the date Victoria was announced. That it coincided with a career move on JC's part has nothing to do with the show.

This situation reminds me of one I see a lot when an well-known actor leaves one series to star in another, such as Michael Weatherly did recently. People persist in adding "former NCIS star" or some variation on that before the first appearance of Weatherly's name in the article about his new series, Bull, which is almost immediately removed. Why? The same principle applies there as here. What he used to do has no bearing on the article about the show he's doing now. That belongs in his article. -- -- Dr. Margi  ✉  17:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * What a shame. How very bad faith of you. I'd hoped to have more faith that you would actually discuss the topic and not continue the edit-war based on the number of "votes", which is something that you know is highly frowned upon, especially from such an experienced editor such as yourself. I truly can now see why so many people have recently submitted so many reports against you for edit-warring. I will be on the lookout for the next one to contribute.
 * No, it was not just the same day. It was the same report. If the article was laid out in the reverse order, in which Victoria was announced n the first section and then Joleman's departure in the second section, would you continue to say it was only about Coleman? If not, it seems that the content of the report and the article is perfectly acceptable. --  Alex TW 00:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ignore your threats, misrepresentations and personal attack Alex, and try to remember the collaborative Alex of old long enough to once again make the same point I have made several times before. I so hoped a little compromise might actually satisfy you.  Oh, well.


 * Once again, the issue isn't how or when there was mention of Jenna Coleman leaving Doctor Who to take the lead role in Victoria. It doesn't matter if it was on the same day, in the same article or whatever else.  Look at the title of the article linked above.  It's not about Victoria.  It's about Jenna Coleman's decision to leave one role to assume another, a career decision on her part.  Jenna Coleman's departure from Doctor Who has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with our readers' understanding of the show Victoria.  Her actions vis a vis Doctor Who have no place in this article, full stop.  Jenna Coleman's career decisions and the timing of the announcement of said career decisions, whether they be concurrent with this show are not, are not relevant to this show.  On the other hand, they can be discussed until you're blue in the face on her article.  Knock yourself out.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  23:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a threat at all. Just an observation on how many times you've been reported. I wonder why. If only the old Drmargi came back out and decided not to war and be collaborative. I will, however, be the better editor here and allow your warred version to stand instead of the status quo.
 * No matter how many caps you use, it doesn't change the fact that you are incorrect in your view of the article. The title is irrelevant. It is clearly an announcement of the series that occurred due to Coleman leaving another series. If the former had not happened, the latter would not have either. Hence, the text in the lead is entirely dependent upon the line that was previously included. If it is not relevant at all, then why include it in the Production section? Surely that is a contradiction of yourself. The lead is meant to summarize the article, and if the very same content is still included in the article, then it should have a sentence to summarize it in the lead. Either you support including the content at all or not at all. You can't argue that it has no relevance in the article but still include it. --  Alex TW 01:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, time to brush up on WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Meanwhile, objectionable content is gone.  I didn't put it there, but I'm happy to remove it.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  04:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It should not be removed from the article, and placed where appropriate because it is connected, whether you like it or not, to the production. It will never change and the statements were issued by a very reliable source. As to its placement-- let us face it that if the purpose of WP is to have articles of * status then it has way more work for itself than to quibble and take up time and effort just so that someone comes out on top. I am not surprised by some of the personal statements in here. The internet is THE place for anonymous flame throwers. The facts remain that 1) It sees to be the first notice of the action in public; 2) It is from a very reliable source; 3) This article is far from * status; 4) Let time decide with these factual characteristics what we put in an article. Are we going to remove something that years from now is to be found in the footnotes of a book about the topic? Are we then going to decide that the fact is now appropriate to be in WP?2605:E000:9161:A500:CA7:C162:8BD5:B1CE (talk) 06:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Jeez, but that standard, we could put anything where Victoria is mentioned in the article. Fortunately, we have policies such as WP:INDISCRIMINATE that limit the deluge, and which apply in this case.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  17:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Marge, exactly what is it that I have done to you to warrant getting an editorial "jeez". It is better to stick to the facts and refrain from editorial miscalculation in an effort to "win" the situation. There seems to be a misunderstanding about the subtleties of the situation. Links serve the purpose of bringing to the attention of readers additional information in WP. Not every article in WP is less than 2 years old. This article is not an authorized biography of Victoria, and it certainly is not an academic work. But in this instance, not every actor goes from job to job to job; and if you want to prove that wrong, welcome to it. Also, not every actor wants to go from job to job to job. If that is wrong ....... Not every article in WP that concerns Victoria warrants this being mentioned. If you want to prove otherwise ....... This is a fictional account and many other mentions in WP of Victoria are biographical. She is not Victoria; she plays the character. The whole point of the talk page is to discuss what in WP policy is no longer applicable. WP policies have changed over time, just like language. You see in many articles that are based on an existing work or period of time the creeping in of comparing each with the other when it is forgotten that they stand on their own and an article is not an end all as well as is WP in the pursuit to learn about something regardless as to it being fiction or non-fiction. There is absolutely no way to guard against any article's content becomes obsolete. We attempt to make the best of what we have at any given time. Does the Dr. Who activity warrant mention in an article that directly concerns it? Right now, yes. In the future ..... What is the dialogue in Lincoln about being able to know about the future? It's presence in the article certainly will not lead me to sleepless nights.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

The Tories and Albert -- Why did they dislike him?
"The ministers ask Victoria to choose a regent in the case she dies in childbirth but her baby survives. She insists on Albert as regent, which enrages the Tories. However, Sir Robert Peel believes Albert could be influenced and supports him as regent."

Did the Tories dislike albert because he was a foreigner or because he could not be lobbied? If it is merely by being foreign-born then Peel's position cannot be a contrary statement and should stand on his own without a qualifier. I am not familiar with the subtitles of the time period and just what in the dialogue is the intent in the programme's action. From what I understand the Tories are the home interest defenders therefore they dislike Albert for being a foreigner rather than not being abled to be lobbied. So if Peel accepts Albert despite his origins although it is said that Peel believes that he can be lobbied then Peel's view is not contrary to the Tories because they base their intent on his foreignness rather than an unwavering stance on being influenced?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is obvious that, as you say, you know little. Peel was a Tory and thus, although members of his party in many cases were unhappy with the prospect of Albert, he was not; hence, "however". You're reading far too much into this, almost as if you are being deliberately obtuse or pedantic. Which leads me on to the confusing issue of subtitles (sic). - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do attempt to remain civil when replying to discussion posts. --  Alex TW 10:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am being civil. Can't you see the chain-pulling to which I am responding? - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, anti-German sentiment was generally high at that time. Nothing to do with the Tories specifically. There's a fantastic pamphlet called something like Albert and the Assault on Maidenhead in the British Library (only one other known copy), which is full of double-entendre (including the word maidenhead itself) and particularly vitriolic. - Sitush (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Number of PBS episodes
For some reason PBS is promoting the series as a 7-parter rather than 8 like it was in the UK. Assuming an episode hasn't been dropped that might explain the "extended episodes" announcement from the summer, even though that makes no sense given that each of Victoria's episodes are designed to more or less stand on their own. 68.146.233.86 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The press release states for Victoria that The seven-part series follows her ascension to the throne in 1837 at 18, but Futon has listed eight episodes, airing one episode each week for the eight weeks. I guess we should remain on the lookout for new information as the series premieres. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 11:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The official website for KCET confirms 7 episodes, with a two-hour premiere on the 15th. Given the first episode is about 70-80 minutes and then add in a 45-minute second episode that more or less adds up. KCET also says there will be no broadcast on Feb. 26. (I'm 68etc replying from another computer). 136.159.160.6 (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So, realistically, it's still eight episodes; the first week is just a two-episode back-to-back premiere. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 02:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the price of putty, but KCET does not carry Victoria, and is not affiliated with PBS any longer. However, the actual LA PBS station, KOCE, as with all PBS stations, carries the series with a two-hour first episode (not two back-to-back episodes), as it does many British series.  The remaining episodes run roughly 50 minutes, generally followed by a little feature on the making of some aspect of the show.  Given that Masterpiece is a co-producer of this show, WGBH, which owns Masterpiece and edits the American version, has access to additional footage, and we may see three or four minutes more than what is broadcast in the UK.  The editing is also seamless, so we don't get the fade-in/fade-out at ad breaks that we see on streaming/DVD versions of television programs with commercials.   -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  15:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

"Forced" medical proceedure
If the word "forced" continues to be used to characterize the medical procedure that found her tumour then what she endured is not properly characterized because she is not held down to have it done but must have to endure it in order to regain her own pre-existing regard for her character. She definitely had to endure it but she was not in the least "forced". Black African slaves were forced to travel the ocean to the new word. That characterization of force is not a close approximate.2605:E000:9161:A500:180A:2748:F6F8:136F (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you've adopted too narrow, simple a interpretation of force. Force isn't simply physical restraint.  Lady Flora was compelled, by order of the Queen and as executed by her functionaries, to have that examination.  She had no choice as a member of the Royal household.  That's force, which makes the working perfectly acceptable, and accurate.  To leave out a qualifying adjective suggests Flora underwent the examination by choice.  That's not what happened, which is a very salient point, leading to the problems Victoria had to her subjects early in the reign.  The key word in the sentence is force.  You could change force for another word, but to remove it alters the meaning of the sentence too much, and does not present the events as they occurred, much less create the link to subsequent events.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  16:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * If life was so easy then complications would be nonexistent. Sometimes the best way to go about explaining what is a situation is to discuss the situation and see what is it that is used to express the situation. FORCED, HAD, UNDEGOES, COMPELLED..........It clearly shows that "forced" is not the right word because its base is some type of physical nature that makes it necessary for the act to be done. Slaves are forced, Captives are forced, prisoners are forced--they all seam to involved a not so beneficial subordinated aspect. A lady in waiting is not necessarily such a non-beneficial subordinate. A lady in waiting could be a friend so different types of word bases need to be considered and those that have an underlying aspect of non-beneficial subordination just do not properly characterize the situation. There is a clear difference in intent between forced and compelled. One by the mere desire of someone to have done on another warrants defiance whereas with the other there is a clear almost neutral desire to do it in order to be known. And yes, over time there have been instances where a word having a particular nuance grows to include others but I do not think that needs to be a concern here. Others can take care of that when it happens.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Again, this is your interpretation of force, not the dictionary definition. We go by the dictionary.  If you look at the Oxford dictionary (that's British English) definition of the verb form of force, you will see it includes:


 * ''Make (someone) do something against their will.
 * ‘she was forced into early retirement’
 * with object and infinitive ‘the universities were forced to cut staff’''


 * That describes exactly what happened to Lady Flora. Force is not just physical, as I said before.  It is the act of compulsion or coercion against will.  That is PRECISELY what happened to Lady Flora, and was the material point of that segment of the episode:  she was portrayed as a victim of forced humiliation in the press, which damaged the early days of the Queen's reign, and gave fuel to her detractors.  To remove the term without at least attempting an alternative term substantively alters the description of the episode, and breaks the causal link with the next event described.  This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, and we must be clear and accurate in our descriptions of these episodes.  Your edit compromises that description.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  20:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

In future it may be all the best to less describe what one writes as the best instead of presenting it as an example to study. It seems the best route to go when discussing these things so that people do not take things in such a personal manner and instead be impersonal--avoid the person (I me you him her they, etc) It gets easier as its frequency increases.2605:E000:9161:A500:180A:2748:F6F8:136F (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess if it were expected each word to stand as a statement on its own without being in strings then the world would be mush different than what it is. The explanation from the Oxford would have us totally forget and disregard the word "acquiesce". Letting something happen is not being forced because it has come to be. The Chinese seem to envelop that "component into their philosophy of life. Maybe a pure western approach to this has clouded the mind. It is a good thing that there is this distance during these discussions as it is so disturbing to be surrounded by a constant directing of the voice at the presenter instead of the question. It is difficult to determine if that approach is learned or inherited. You see, when the wrong word is used there really is not much that has to be done to what is championed to be found wanting. She is not a slave and not a prison and in the programme there really is never any scene to show that she MUST do it otherwise some type of harm will com to her. Force represent harm and if her integrity has already been slaughtered then what need must she be forced to do it. Make people believe that there is the possibility of something being and there will always more than not likely for that attitude to exist even if the parties that championed damage to your integrity that the condition persists. All we really have to go on with life is the nuance and subtlety that differentiates us all. I just cannot see the Lady in waiting at great physical risk to be "forced" to do something. Did I miss in those scenes bars on the windows and blockades across the doors?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC) Even when it came to one of the other championed positions the would compelled was used instead of forced and that word unto itself shows that lack of harm to come if it were not followed through. And that word substitution was made by the "forced" group. Anyways, I would really hate to have to give up use of one word just because it is endorsed the Oxford.

Before this gets too far along in the day, this sort of reminds me of the devekopment of film plots that when quick and hard in the heat of the film's populariy and "impact" someone may have the idea that "X" is the issue and should be expresses as such but then once the gush of growth during the summer and you lower the level of the lake for the winter kill to happen that people find that the original disruption really took up a lot of time when what was questions really was not thr apparent question at hand but something else. Maybe part of these acrobatics has to be with just getting use to a different style that never had longevity to begin. If someone is thought to be forced to do something yet had all the opportunity to not do it and let it happened then maybe they acquiest to conclusion instead of chains and dungeons. Mrs. Heathcliff I could see being subjected to force but not Lady anti-Tory--one was insane and the other just a creature in her own environment without malice.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've made three attempts to read this and it makes no sense. You're still limiting the definition of force to something physical and that's not correct, as I've demonstrated above.  Meanwhile, your edit has significantly altered the meaning of the sentence, and that's not acceptable.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  03:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Marge--The situation with belittling people is that what they write may not be intended to convince you but just keep you in the loop. Time and time again, it can be found expressed in messages posted under your name various levels of personal attacks or and innuendo. That is not my thing and I find those that do use it have a sense of self being that is less than what I can appreciate. We may be involved in the same process but that does not mean we have to directly communicate to each other via this system. I am not saying that I am unwilling to deal with you. I am willing to deal with you on a level befitting less than ingenuous communication. It is called politeness. If you are not familiar with this term please consult Oxford. It is never my intention to limit any thing. It has always been my intention to appropriately express and convey a connotation that is valid rather than imposed on a situation. "Forced" has never been in the dialogue of this issue in the programme. To convey that "forced" is appropriate is imposing that state of mind on the reader and, if they have seen or intend to see the programme, all others. It would be a travesty of the English language and the British broadcasting industry to have WP endorse that "forced" is appropriate I this matter. To suggest otherwise is just plain foolishness in the attempt to impose an irrelevant position on people that want this matter to be understood for what it intends--meaning and intent.

It was never the intention of the programme to fictionally portray that the lady-in-waiting was somehow physically forced to do something that without the accusation of pregnancy would never have been needed to preserve the integrity of the woman. This proliferation for "forced" continues to flare what never needed to be flamed into our minds. There are no metal rods across the windows of her room; there is no bar across her door preventing her from just rising from bed and walking out if she so choose to do so instead of acquiesce to the medical procedure. She is not screaming in defiance or thrashing her hands and arms about preventing the medical practitioner from carrying out the act. This does not look like the scene of someone being forced. She is not a slave and she is not a prisoner. If it is again decided to react to this that a less than acceptable version suitable to your understanding will be the response then again, I have little control over the fantasies and wished for outcomes of others that do not want others to find just what is the correct characterization of a situation. It is neither limited or exclusionary. It is merely using the appropriate words and terms to describe a situation. Long ago it became clear to me that continually calling attention to someone else championing a state of mind by the person being supportive of Anti-WP policies and standards is really a ploy that makes me believe that what I write is not an attempt to change that person's mind but enable all others that might be swayed with a mischaracterised perception to have a more diverse account of the matter to review.

How are we to ascertain her will when she very well may be so drugged that she is incapable of carrying what you perceive as her will. If the position taken continues to interfere with a clearer understanding of what role WP plays in making clear the position of the character in the programme then I will need to be aware of those portions of policy and guidelines portrays to imposition of someone's thoughts about what is or is not being experienced by a fictional character in a program that is not an authorised biography, a docu-drama or academic work. We are discussing a work of entertainment. Historically-based but nothing more than a fictional account.

What has a tremendous bearing on this issue is that once we get beyond what was said about the character and the incident becomes speculation with a heavy component of what impact have chemicals on the mind and body. It is not my role in this activity to speculate just to fill in some perceived holes in the storey.

WP continually has to battle itself when a work is included in WP because people have to get past all their prejudices and assumptions before they can get to what is the role of WP serving its function. Now, I have a particularly interesting perspective on spirits but do I let this interfere with my understanding of a situation? I attempt to avoid any such action because it ends up making a mess of what is perfectly good without having to become muddled. If you want to speak about her perceived "will" then you had best have fictionalized non-fiction that portrays her inner thoughts. Unfortunately that is absent from the programme dialogue.

I can accept that there may not be present in this discussion the ability to accept or understand that view but I will not allow the minds of perfectly functioning minds to be swayed by emotion that brings about the misapplication of what are portrayed as standards but really are ill-advised interpretations.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

It is really funny the concept of what is and what is unacceptable has much to do with the "force" that is advocating the application.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

More could be said about this but I have to prepare a brief.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 07:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I want to explain something here but have yet to get to the big bang moment until I see Lincoln, one more time. So understand that there is a pause, happening. Oh, "I could write shorter sermons but once I start I get too lazy to stop." The question at hand is whether the word "forced" appropriately reflects the situation that Lady Hastings finds herself concerning the medical examination? What the word lacks is an applicable painful motivation by the words or actions of Lady Hastings should she decide to forgo the examination? Her integrity has already been questioned. Can she loose more if she foregoes the examination? In hindsight, she has so much more to gain by willfully withholding undergoing the examination because she knows that the bases that others have found as to her alleged social transgression is baseless and when the true state of her health is revealed a whole unimagined level of regret could very well come to Victoria. Against her will? At what point can you disregard that Lady Hastings holds the political coup of a lifetime--albeit hers will be short lived. Does Lady hastings actually say that she is being forced? I do not believe so but I do believe that the viewer has that perception because people can empathize with someone that appears to have as their only ability to establish their credibility is through an examination by others. To vindicate herself, all that Lady Hastings has to do is live as long as she possibly can and then die. The examination goes forward, the verdict is released and the fallout cannot be missed. Lady Hastings has to do absolutely nothing to vindicate her position. That does not appear to being forced to do anything but acquiescing--a train wreck just waiting to happen. That is the problem with characterizing that Lady Hastings is forced and has no command over her will. She has absolutely everything under her command when it regards her will. If you are unable to see that then you fall victim to traditional western thought that cannot understand so clearly that "passive action" as an applicable strategy toward resolving a situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9161:A500:7C06:FE51:3E78:B311 (talk) 09:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IP editor, the above is an awful lot to expect any editor to read and parse. Any chance you could please keep your responses briefer and more on point? Being abstruse doesn't make it easier to arrive at a consensus. Also, a practicality note, if you intended the above block to be a single comment, there's no need to sign every time you save. So long as nobody has responded, you can edit as needed, then just sign the whole thing when you're done. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bomb, if it can be address that way -- Never to be one to call attention to her existence, but even Margaret Thatcher called to the attention of her colleagues that they should pay attention to what she said instead of how it was said. Now as to your point, is that a yes for or a no--or should there be more time allowed to parse? The Encyclopedia Britannica was not read in one day and even that gift American WC Minor did not create overnight the quotation examples of the Oxford. I can remember in university logic class as to when to tell you might have the upper hand on someone's response--attack the delivery instead of the content. Of course, having a grandmother whos primary language was not of th country she lived always gave away that she wanted to do away with a topic by feigning she did not understand. Maybe it can be pointed out just what portions were to hefty? Or should the thoughts be expressed in fair less complicated statements such as simple sentences? Please advise.2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Drmargi is correct. The usage of the word force is fine in this context. - Sitush (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, this IP editor, who is also the IP in the discussion above (as if the bloviating doesn't give that away already) and the two below, is subject to a one-year block for highly problematic editing; don't give him a second thoughts. Meanwhile, the word force was restored the day he was blocked.  This is just a troll who uses a lot of words to make very little sense. -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  15:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, thanks. I didn't realise that. Still, it supports my comment below where I was calling out some BS. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Childbirth death
Should the reference of death in somehow related to birthing be referred to as "from" rather than "in" child birth since Victoria may deliver a child unaffected by the condition of the mother but the mother may well after the birth experience some presentation of illness that can be connected with birthing but not during the actual birthing processes? It might in the long run, unless there is dialogue to the point to say from child-birthing to recovery time when death could be attributed to a birthing event but not the actual birthing?2605:E000:9161:A500:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In British English, it is "died in childbirth" etc. If it is different elsewhere, tough. - Sitush (talk) 10:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ditto in American English. Should she die post-partum, the mother might be described as saying from the effects of childbirth. That wasn't Victoria's worry.  -- -- Dr. Margi   ✉  17:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Reception
In view of the poor critical reception of the series, not to mention its historical inaccuracies, might it not be helpful to have a section on the reception of the series? Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Poor critical reception? Not what I've seen. But by all means, you're welcome to add a section. Alex&#124;The&#124;Whovian ? 00:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what source "Everybody" is using for the "poor critical reception" as it's pretty universally acclaimed and is considered a shoo-in for major award consideration. The only people giving it bad reviews (and I'm being pretty serious here) are either those under the mistaken impression that this was a documentary series, and those who wanted it to be full of explicit sex like most other royalty-based historical dramas of recent years (The Crown notwithstanding). 68.146.233.86 (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We have just had 3 episodes here on Australian TV. It is very nice viewing on a Saturday night but I would not ever take it as a totally accurate historical record.
 * When you look at the 'set' you will see that it is not a set - it looks like the real places, incl. Buck House. No film company gets permission to shoot in premises without script approval by the owners and watertight confidentiality clauses. So it must all come out positively, and I don't have a problem with that. I had not known Coleman but was intrigued by her diction which sounded a little like the current Queen. Maybe she's had a lesson or two? As a former German I found the German bits incompetent; they should have taken more care to make it sound genuine. I was intrigued by the wedding in Windsor Castle. I thought the chappel did not have a marriage license, but maybe that requirement came in later. 2001:8003:A921:6300:991B:7431:1341:59FD (talk) 00:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Albert's origins
Leopold is not certain therefore it has to be a "may" rather than an absolute.2605:E000:9143:7000:804A:5CA9:AA1C:5E0 (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Albert finds himself disagreeing with his father's demands relating to their finance
You cannot have a funeral before you have a death. For the person that has yet to see this programme this sentence is confusing. The father has to demand before Albert can disagree. And just exactly to what is he disagreeing to--the demand or the finance of the demand or the finances of Albert?2605:E000:9143:7000:804A:5CA9:AA1C:5E0 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --  Alex TW 22:26, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: no consensus for a move at this time. (closed by page mover) Brad  v  00:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Victoria (TV series) → Victoria (UK TV series) – Further disambiguation is required as other TV series exist that are also called Victoria: Victoria (2007 telenovela) and Victoria (Mexican telenovela). -- wooden superman  14:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I assume you meant to make the target of this RM Victoria (UK TV series)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks!!! -- wooden superman  14:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an incorrect requested move, as you're requesting that it be moved to the same page. However, if you are wanting to move it to the article you recently moved it to, Victoria (UK TV series), then my !vote is oppose. A telenovela is not a series - if you read the linked article, no mention of a series is mentioned in the lead. Given that this particular article refers to the only television series named Victoria, then it is currently disambiguated enough. --  Alex TW 14:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course a telenovela is a TV series, in the same way a soap opera is. It's a series on television.  -- wooden  superman  14:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source to back this up, or is it your own personal opinion on its definition? If it is the latter, then you need to gain a consensus to define a new definition to the word "telenova" for its usage on Wikipedia. --  Alex TW 14:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source categorically stating that a telenovela is NOT a TV series? Of course it's a bloody TV series.  It's a series.  On TV.  -- wooden  superman  14:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article has been at its current location since August 2016 with no issue or contest, at which point it was moved from Victoria (miniseries) when the programme was officially renewed for a second series. Given that it is you requesting to change the article's title, the burden is on you to provide the evidence to support your claims. What you give appears to only be your personal interpretation. (And do attempt to remain WP:CIVIL, swearing will get you nowhere.) --  Alex TW


 * Support. The existence of other TV series of this name makes the current title incomplete disambiguation. Victoria (TV series) should point to disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read the above discussion that has resulted from my own !vote, then point to an actual television series with the same name. --  Alex TW 14:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Many people would (and do) consider a telenovela a TV series, and thus would be confused by this disambiguation.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: It probably would have been better if this RM were postponed until after the RfC at WT:NCTV was resolved, but this particular mess will need to be cleaned up eventually, so I lean in the direction of supporting this RM. I would advise also moving the 2007 series to Victoria (U.S. TV series) (or Victoria (U.S. telenovela)), as "by country" disambiguation in these three cases would seem to be preferable to the single "by year" disambig. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The move seemed non-controversial to me as the telenovela discussion isn't applicable to this series. This was just simple WP:INCDAB maintenance.  -- wooden  superman  14:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it becomes even more relevant if the result of the RfC is that the other two need to be moved to Victoria (U.S. TV series) and Victoria (Mexican TV series) – then this one would absolutely have to be moved to Victoria (UK TV series) in that case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * True, good point. -- wooden  superman  14:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The telenovela of 2007 moved to Victoria (2007 telenovela), because it is a production of two countries, you can not credit a single country, when the telenovela was created exclusively for two television channels.-- Philip J Fry  /  talk  16:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article says country of origin is "United States". IMDb does seem to show that it was filmed in Bogata, though. Based on this, I'm not sure – it would be nice if there was more sourced production info at the article: for example, it would be nice to know whether Telemundo actually initiated the project or not... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See here, It clearly says that it is a production of Telemundo and RTI Producciones.-- Philip J Fry  /  talk  17:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That it ended up being a "co-production" is not in doubt. What I'd like to know is whether one, or both, initiated the project – whoever initiated the project would indicate the "country of origin": if the original initiator was just Telemundo (and RTI joined later), then "U.S." TV series is accurate; if it was RTI that initiated it, then "Colombia" TV series is accurate; if both initiated it together, then there's no "country of origin".... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there are no reliable sources that indicate in which country premiered first, because it was also produced for Caracol TV. The convenient thing would be to leave it as it is currently.-- Philip J Fry  /  talk  17:35, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Better to put this on hold until the RfC at WT:NCTV is resolved, this RM is assuming the result of the RfC. I don't have an opinion either way on this good faith nom, but given that the contested question about definition is being discussed it seems best not to extend that RfC to this RM. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The article Serial (radio and television) explains that the British 'serial' and Spanish/Latin 'telenovela' are used in ways that overlap, to a significant extent, with the American 'series' or 'mini-series'. They all relate to a drama spread over a number of episodes and screened on television.  On that basis the destination for these page names is as IJBall suggests and I would Support - if this is the consensus position it doesn't rest upon the other RfC. MapReader (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:INCDAB. After move, bypass the redirects, and then redirect Victoria (TV series) > Victoria. Not dependent on the RFC. -- Netoholic @  16:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. If it is moved then it should be to Victoria (2016 TV series), which seems to be our commonest way of disambiguating TV series and films. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No – "by country" and "by year" disambiguation are both allowed (and basically equivalent) under NCTV. In this particular case, "by country" disambig. would actually be preferable as there are different UK, U.S., and Mexican series all with this title. "By year" disamb. is preferred when you have multiple series with the same title from the same country... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure there is any preferred system. Both are used, but year seems to be used more commonly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If the 2007 telenovela really can't be tied to a specific country, then, yes – the best choices for all three would be Victoria (1987 TV series) (or telenovela), Victoria (2007 TV series) (or telenovela), and Victoria (2016 TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Better to put this on hold. I totally agree with AlexTheWhovian to leave everything like this, because there is no other television series with the same name. Also here is a debate currently, in which the user woodensuperman is participating. And from my point of view, it would be best to wait until consensus is reached there, to say what to do here.--  Philip J Fry  /  talk  17:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Words, words and more words. How many are needed?
Only so much at any given time can be portrayed on screen but it seems that when we go to described that action we need more words that the duration to read goes beyond what is describing the original lapse time of the performance. Yes, that is an over simplification but when we are using words that do not add to our understanding of such things as performances why are we using them except to elongate descriptive "summaries" (NOT). These episode summaries are not novellas, Dickens' novel he got paid by the word, or Victorian novels that because of the lifestyle of the time was necessary to be excessive so that these corseted ladies had something to do between having breakfast in bed and sitting at the second place of precedence at the dinner table. If sentence "X" comes after sentence "Y" then we have to assume that "X" happened before "Y" because we are not writing an analytical description of an episode. If we are writing these summaries to be succinct then we pretty much should be agreeing that there is generally no need to set the time of happenstance when the beginning of the summary should be the beginning of the episode and consequently the middle the middle and the end the end. And generally, a production is somewhat absent time because we may not always know what time something happened except that it happened and we may not know how much later time has passed and just for count's sake make mention of the event but not just soon or later something happened. In its own little form it starts the ball rolling on introducing analysis into what is not the function of the summary.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What's up for discussion here in this wall of text? I'm not seeing the point of discussion. Are you wanting to show off how much better you are than everyone else at writing? If it needs copy-editing, then copy-edit here. Nothing more required. --  Alex TW 22:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Are you saying that you want to be uncooperative? Because i believe that is contrary to WP policy and intent. Please clarify your angry statement to better suit your purpose.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the point of this "discussion". It's a wall of text explaining how to write. How is this necessary? --  Alex TW 23:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I am unable to help you realize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * How tiresome that the infobox relists all the cast, styling them as "stars". We really do need to eliminate such repetitive garbage in WP. Bjenks (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with the template and its supporting documentation, then you need to take that up elsewhere. --  Alex TW 01:27, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

British series
There has been extended discussion here, here and here about the nationality of television series, with particular reference to British series such as Downton Abbey that are financially supported by and shown in the US under the PBS Masterpiece brand. Consequentially the television MoS now rests upon direct referencing and the exercise of creative control as the determinants of the nationality (country of origin).

In the case of Victoria, this is an opportunity to align the opening sentence of the lead article with its existing disambiguation, with its nationality as a British series confirmed by referencing Netflix[], Hollywood Reporter[], Digital Spy[], CNN[] and Time Magazine [], as well as a host of British RS. That creative control sat in the UK is widely recognised and confirmed by interviews with senior PBS executives. MapReader (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Series 3
I'm waiting for a public online source to post it to include it in the article, but as a heads up, the most recent issue of Doctor Who Magazine stated that the premiere date for Series 3 is October 14. --  Alex TW 03:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Article title correct?
The article title includes "(British TV series)". Isn't this off-style? My understanding is Wikipedia's disambiguation style is "(UK TV series)". 136.159.160.5 (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)