Talk:The Crown (TV series)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Crown (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 92 days

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Royalty Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.British RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject British RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject British RoyaltyBritish royalty articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 4 times. The weeks in which this happened:

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

"The Crown: How has Netflix handled Princess Diana's death?". BBC News. 2023-11-18. Retrieved 2023-11-18.
Hogan, Michael (2023-11-17). "'Royally lost the plot': how The Crown went from prestige drama to TV disaster". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-11-18.

S5 Draft

Draft:The Crown (season 5)

Listing this draft here for anyone who's interested. Peter Ormond 💬 15:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque statements in the historical accuracy section

This section is opaque: "... efforts had been made to prevent any further delay, which would have allowed Princess Margaret to keep her royal title ..." - delay in doing what? and why would the unspecified delay have allowed Princess Margaret to keep her royal title etc.? I think this needs to be reworded much more clearly. Bandekafsh (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting

Hi User:CapnZapp. Just noticed that you had placed a tag on the casting section. I think your explanation makes sense and the current structure is rather unbalanced. I would be in favor of creating a subsection that covers the payment issues, rather than a controversy section as that IMO would violate the article's neutrality. What do you think? Keivan.f^Talk 17:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Controversy sections don't violate neutrality (when written properly). That said, I'm keeping the door open to any reasonable solution CapnZapp (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Table for Cast

It would probably be much easier for readers to understand who plays each character in each season if it were depicted in a table - perhaps something like this:

Main Cast
Character	1	3	4	5
Elizabeth II	Claire Foy	Olivia Colman		Imelda Staunton
Elizabeth II	Claire Foy		Claire Foy	Claire Foy
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh	Matt Smith	Tobias Menzies		Jonathan Pryce
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon	Vanessa Kirby	Helena Bonham Carter		Lesley Manville
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon	Vanessa Kirby	Helena Bonham Carter		Vanessa Kirby

With the violet colour denoting that the actor was featured as that character in that season. Jekrox (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. If it is to be used though, I suggest that the violet color segment is not applied and a note or indicative markings are added instead. ภץאคгöร 13:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A cast table already exists at List of The Crown characters. U-Mos (talk) 17:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

@Nyxaros, will you please do me the favour of explaining the errors I've made in the lead, as I can't see them. Thank you A.D.Hope (talk) 11:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the most prominent of them were, as I wrote in the edit summary, "mixed-to-positive" and "mixed-to-negative" additions and the removal of cast members. It doesn't matter anyway, they were reverted and the lead is OK now. ภץאคгöร 17:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any objections to "mixed-to-positive" and "mixed-to-negative" being changed so long as the wording is accurate, but I disagree that the lead is currently good. In particular, the paragraph on the cast is too detailed–a single example would suffice. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyxaros, unless you can give a more substantial reason for your reversions than 'bad writing' I'll have to escalate this disupte. Your reasoning is not good enough. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think your unsourced, poorly written WP:SYNTH contribution ("generally positive critical reviews", "particularly from the fourth season." [...]) with an unreliable source (WP:FORBESCON) is "good enough"? I don't have to explain everything all the time. If your goal is to really make it shorter, do it. If it includes the rest it will be reverted. ภץאคгöร 16:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think my contributions are good enough. My synthesis of the critical response and the criticism of the series' historical accuracy is accurate and reflects what is in the article body. I removed the Forbes source once you pointed out that it is considered unreliable by the community.

Please do not threaten to revert my edits. A.D.Hope (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have just reverted part of my lead, claiming that the article body does not support the description of the sixth series as 'mixed' or criticisms of the series' historical accuracy being particularly prominent from the fourth season. The body says:

For the first part of the sixth season, Rotten Tomatoes reports 55% approval from 62 reviews, with an average rating of 6.2/10. On Metacritic, the season holds a score of 61 out of 100 based on 29 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".

Scores of 55% and 61/100 can be described as 'mixed'. It's worth noting that, notwithstanding Metacritic's description, 14 of its reviews are categorised as 'positive', 13 as 'mixed', and 2 as 'bad'.

It also says:

However, the series has also received backlash, especially from British critics and the royal family. British reviewers have criticised the fourth season for being "inaccurate" and "anti-monarchy". Simon Jenkins writing for The Guardian described it as "fake history", "reality hijacked as propaganda, and a cowardly abuse of artistic licence" which fabricated history to suit its own preconceived narrative, and argued that "Morgan could have made his point truthfully". Royal biographer Sally Bedell Smith criticised the inaccuracies and negative portrayal of the royal family, stating, "Because The Crown is such a lavish and expensive production, so beautifully acted and cleverly written, and so much attention has been paid to visual details about historical events, viewers are tricked into believing that what they are seeing actually happened", concluding that "while the earlier seasons were period pieces, this is recent history, so it seems more cruel in its false depictions". Following some negative reactions to the fourth season, British culture secretary Oliver Dowden suggested that the series should have a fiction warning at the beginning as a disclaimer.

Both sections could do with a re-write, but they are reliably sourced within the article. I will give you some time to respond, and if you do not I will re-instate my wording. Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot add a statement at your own request that the source does not specify. 55% Tomatometer is not "mixed", nor is 61/100 Metascore. It is, on the contrary, "generally favorable". You removed historical inaccuracies and left some of what is relevant to the fourth season, this does not mean that the fourth was criticised in particular. As I mentioned, if you are actually going to lengthen the lead you wanted to shorten, at least add the necessary reliable sources and try to represent them correctly. Otherwise, I or someone else will revert your changes or add various templates. See WP:REFDD. That's all from me. ภץאคгöร 18:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

55% on Rotten Tomatoes is a 'rotten' score, and while 61 on Metacritic is officially described as "generally favourable" it is the lowest score in that band – 60 is 'mixed or average'. I noted above that 14 of the Metacritic reviews are categorised as 'positive', 13 as 'mixed', and 2 as 'bad', so taken together it's fair to call the aggregated reviews "mixed".

Criticism of the series' historical accuracy did increase during the fourth season. Having re-read that section of the body I concede that it was implicit rather than explicit, but in my recent edit I've added a source which states: "There were early grumblings about speculative storylines [...] The backlash had ramped up by the fourth season." I think that makes it clearer that, while there has been some criticism of accuracy from the start, it was particularly intense from the fourth season. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]