Talk:List of Blackadder episodes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Overview of this article[edit]

Since the Blackadder article is now rather large, it seems sensible to move the list of episodes to a new article, which I have started doing. Whilst this initially means copying over article content verbatim, I hope to rewrite the episode summaries. Of course, if any other users wish to help, please do so! --Lox (t,c) 20:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm reasonably happy with the rewritten summaries, hope others find this to be a useful page! --Lox (t,c) 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Adder episode titles[edit]

Does anybody know why in series 1, episode 2 Born to be King has the number 4 over the top of the episode title, and episode two The Queen of Spain's Beard has 2? Presumably they were originally intended to be in this order, but that seems somewhat unlikely. Bob Castle 23:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering which release of the series you have seen this on (TV, VHS or DVD?) - I don't seem to have the same version as you, since my old tapes have "2" above "Born to be King" and "4" above "The Queen of Spain's Beard"--Lox (t,c) 19:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've just bought a 5 DVD special box sold at Spain and also the Born to be king has a number 4 over it on the on-screen caption. --81.36.250.193 08:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (ca:entfe001)[reply]
Some of the confusion over this may come from the order in which they were filmed as opposed to the order in which they were aired. I know that in the US this series was originally shown on the A&E network with The Queen of Spain's Beard shown as Ep 2 and Born to be King as Ep4. and the numbers on the eps also matched this. But, as the table shows the original UK showing was the reverse of this. When the series moved to PBS here in the US they were shown in the UK airing order and the opening credits numbering was changed to match this. This was apparent as they were shown in a black or white circle which covered up what they had been previously been (the other four episodes numbers don't have this circle). As they episodes were released in the VHS, and later DVD, formats it would depend on the version transferred as to which set of numbers were used. This is all somewhat confusiing but the US has a history of airing programs in their production number order and not their story (or UK airing) order. I have seen episodes of Doctor Who and Eastenders (try watching a soap opera where things that happen in this weeks eps come before things you saw last week or the week before!) shown totally out of order in my time. One last note A&E also showed Head before Bells.MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The episode list is wrong. I have the first 5 episodes taped from the original screenings. "...Spain's Beard" was transmitted second, "...King" was fourth.Sambda 23:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you tape them in the US? As I stated above the arder that they showed them over here us different than the order that they showed themn in the UK. The order that is on the main page is the order that they showed them in the UK as that is where they were broadcast first. There are several websites that back up this airing order. MarnetteD | Talk 00:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. I still have the original tape of the first 5 episodes as originally aired in UK in 1983. Most web-sites have it wrong (probably because they all just copied each other!) - and "several websites back up..." is not good enough for Wiki, I'm afraid. The "Cunning" book has it right - a far more official source.Sambda 14:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first question is what are you playing these tapes on (and are they beta?) as the machines used in 1983 and their parts are long gone from most places. But, all of that aside, if what you are saying is correct my suggestion is that you click on the link above that will take you to the wikiproject Blackadder and present your evidence (they are good people who like taking care of these pages). I am afraid that you will find that google searches of other websites IS what wikiP relies on. I have resolved some misinformation on shows and films by going to my local library and digging into the microfilm files of my cities newspapers and that may be your best bet, in that, if you can find the listing in the 'Radio Times' from 1983 for the episodes in question that will clinch it one way or the other. Good luck and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am playing the tape on a VHS machine. The machines used in 1983 may indeed be gone, but a modern VHS deck will play the tapes just as well!?! The only difference is that, back then, there was no hi-fi sound - only the linear edge track. Also, probably the LP speed may not have been in the specs back then (can't remember). I will grab the opening to the second ep and post it somewhere (the numbering on the opening is also different - if you look at the copies on home-video/DVD you can see where they fixed it later on!), and then it's up to you lot whether you want to perpetuate the right or wrong info. I really can't be bothered with all the library stuff! Sambda 22:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the library stuff is going to be the only thing that will confirm things. If you read the postings in this category we are already aware of the differences in the opening titles with the 2 and 4 looking dofferent in various releases of the episodes from all of the others. Unless your VHS tapes are date stamped with the relevant 1983 days there is no way of knowing when they were taped. Please don't get me wrong I am not doubting you but even the BBC's website lists them in the order that is presently on the episode listing page. I am also transfering this discussion to the wikiproject Blackadder page so they can help you in your attempts to clear this up. MarnetteD | Talk 23:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-Linking Dates[edit]

Suggestion was made by Bookgrrl to delink dates (see Wikipedia's link guidelines). Basic reasoning is that when you follow one of those links it contains nothing to do with blackadder (as good as blackadder is its airings aren't quite important enough to be listed alongside other world events).

Images ???[edit]

Are they needed? Are they relevant and useful? Check the Link up the top about fair use rationale of images. Personally I don't think they are required as they don't really show much and whilst they look nice they don't really offer any information. I wouldn't mind a picture of the DVD covers for each season, but screenshots aren't required IMO. --frendy 07:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not on this episode list but, as you know, Wikiproject Blackadder intends to write an article for each episode, and these screenshots will be used there, where they will class as fair use. Thus, they should not be removed for the time being because removing them will class them as "orphans" and they will be deleted by Orphanbot or something similar. Bob 09:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing duplicate info[edit]

Can/should the season 2 material be removed now that we have articles for all the Season Two episodes? Seems that eventually all the info should go to the various episode articles and this page should be nothing BUT a plain and simple list, right? --Bookgrrl 16:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) Well, i think its fine. besides, remove some of it, you have to remove it all!--Bob doe jr. the third (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Episode notability[edit]

All of the episodes of this series fail the notability guidelines for television episodes. The way for these articles to be improved is through the inclusion of real-world information from reliable sources to assert notability. That is unlikely to happen, and these only have certain bad aspects (though all may not apply) like containing overly long or one sentence plot summaries, trivia, and quotes. Per that, they need to be a small part of this list.

If there are no objections, these will be redirected soon. Otherwise, discussion will take place here. Please remember that this is not a vote. If you like the information, that's fine and dandy, but your opinion doesn't really count towards anything. The only opinions that do count are ones that that lean towards the inclusion of real world information. TTN 00:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can I clarify that you mean the episodes should be merged here. The series overviews are also tagged to be merged here, which I guess is a mistake from them being in the same category (so AWB tagged them automatically) --h2g2bob (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging and redirecting are patently not the same thing. If TTN wants to merge the articles to a different article that may be acceptable but a simple redirect is not. Tim! 16:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A merge of these articles is recommended, a redirect is not. The question is why post this at all if you are not going to go with the consensus of editors (a core value of wikipedia by the way). Are you just gaming the system? MarnetteD | Talk 17:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TTN has been involved into disputes and eventually cautioned over ignoring consensus before. Nice to see he's still keeping us in a job. Bloodimindium exists in this world too, and is obviously being put to use. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People confuse consensus with the amount of people that agree or disagree with the edit or action. We have policies and guidelines that represent a wider consensus that cannot be trumped by a smaller one. These already have plot summaries here, so there is nothing to merge. TTN 17:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing to merge, please nominate the articles for deletion. After all you have tagged this for merger, why did you do that if there is nothing worth merging? Tim! 17:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are better for episodes because there is a chance they may be brought back, and there is always the possibility of someone else working off of the old plot summary, so they would need to stay for the GDFL. Then there is the fact that mass AfD nominations just break down into various discussions of WP:EPISODE instead of the merits of the actual episodes, which is just worthless. TTN 17:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have no intention of merging, I will remove the merge tags unless you change your mind. Tim! 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you want to play the silly "I'm so literal game", I'll just list this on the episode review. Removing the merge tags will just make less people aware of it. TTN 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, guidlelines (which are ever changing by the way based on consensus) are not hard and fast rules and, based on the above two exchanges it would seem that gaming the system just so you can obliterate other editors hard work is your goal MarnetteD | Talk 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and TTN, when your firing up AWB, you need to far more careful for example here [1], what you tagged was a whole series and not an episode. You are clearly not reading what your tagging. kepp that up and you'll probably see your AWB status revoked again. Tim! 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines based off of three main principals of this site (WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS) are pretty set in what they stand for. You're going to have to see one of the many failed "Change notability" discussions actually work before WP:EPISODE is going to change. If that happens, this site is pretty much screwed.
Wow, human error that is easily fixable, that's really going to get it revoked. And who's to say that I didn't want that merged here (I didn't)? And this is up on the review, by the way. TTN 18:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that's why I asked if it was a mistake on the first post :-) That said, I have no problem with the episodes being merged. But I'd rather see sources found, especially for "Goodbyee" which must have had a large amount of discussion of its poignant ending. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That comment was to Tim's smug comment about AWB, not yours. If you can find sources, that's fine; it's just that these aren't going to stick around unless some sort of possibility is shown, though it's not like it'll be hard to dig the episodes back up. TTN 20:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:KETTLE from the person who opened the debate with the snide remark "your opinion doesn't really count towards anything". Tim! 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other way to say it, and it's not like I'm making it up. TTN 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's Cunning: The "Blackadder" Programme Guide by Chris Howarth and Steve Lyons, published by Virgin Books. As the title implies, it goes into some detail on each episode, though I have no idea where my copy is, so I can't be more specific. And of course the scripts were published, with additional material in both hard and paperback editions to raise money for Comic Relief. Miremare 22:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per WP:EPISODE a merge & redirect here is clear-cut. Moaning about TTN or the guidelines is ineffective; without real-world notability, these should not stay. Eusebeus 14:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion[edit]

Over the past months, TV episodes have been redirected by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. Even if you have not, other opinions are needed because this issue is affecting all TV episodes in Wikipedia. --Maniwar (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

other children in need[edit]

I seen to have stumbled againts a children in need special not mentioned in this article, which can be seen here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcOPVlXLE0M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob doe jr. the third (talk • --Bob doe jr. the third (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Looking at it, it's not so much an episode as a short sketch/character appearance. Bob talk 21:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More discription[edit]

I think all the specials could use more discriptions. Including The pilot, The Xmas carol, the calvender years, back and forth, and all the things under the 'specials' section. They also count as episodes!--Bob doe jr. the third (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah, I guess they could perhaps do with a little more description, although I they're only meant to be summaries for the linked articles. Bob talk 21:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Blackadder episodes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Blackadder_episodes&oldid=1203529707"