Talk:The Crown (TV series)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

British or American-British?

We have editors changing the article say that The Crown is British and one editor saying it is American-British. The production company is British (Left Bank Pictures). It is being distributed by an American platform (Netflix). A BBC reference states that The Crown is Netflix's "first original British drama". It does not say American-British. I think we need to clear this up since the article is getting 25,000 views per day and we don't want to give our readers the wrong impression. Firebrace (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read articles that claim that while Victoria was a British production, The Crown was produced by American companies. I'll see if I can find it again. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Crown was produced by Left Bank Pictures, a subsidiary of the American company Sony Pictures Entertainment; maybe that's why you thought it was American. Left Bank Pictures is a limited company based in London. It's a British company and the series is British. Firebrace (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

And then you have sources from the UK that states it is American-British. Many British series are also American by production - see Sherlock and Downton Abbey for more. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The date on that Metro piece is 29 October. We should not rely on sources that were published after 'British-American' was added to this article because they may have got their information from Wikipedia. See Reliability of Wikipedia#Information loop. Firebrace (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll be sure to help find one. Looking through the article's history, it was actually long-standing as simply American between June 2015 (article creation) and August 2016; only then was it changed to "British", then to "American-British". I assume that the American part comes from the fact that the series is produced by Netflix, supported by the article: "The first 10-part season was the most expensive drama produced by Netflix to date". (Oh, and on a side note, turns out they're not all directed by the same person). Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that the status quo must remain while the discussion is in place. If you want, you can request a third opinion. But for the most part, since the creation of the article, you are the only editor who has disagreed upon the country of origin. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

At this stage it is 3:1. Myself and two IP editors have tried changing it to "British". You're the only one reverting us. You're wrong and misrepresenting the BBC source, which calls it a British drama. The Telegraph source does not say it was produced by Netflix, so that's wrong too. I don't know why you're being so obstructive. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay not a policy. I suspect that you just don't like change... Firebrace (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Either that, or you're trying to fore your POV, the same as the editors at Sherlock and Downton Abbey. If you want to edit-war, I'm not going to indulge you. The series is produced by Netflix, which makes it an American series, and this has stood since the article's creation. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I have seen two episodes of Sherlock, none of Downton Abbey, and I won't be watching The Crown either because I don't have Netflix. It was commissioned by Netflix and produced by Left Bank Pictures. According to the BBC it is a British drama series. If we can't trust the BBC then who can we trust? Your attitude is absolutely shocking. Firebrace (talk) 10:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

As is yours. Trying to display knowledge on a series you won't be watching, nor have researched. The series is produced by Netflix, not just commissioned. There are a multitude of sources that state this. And of course the BBC claim it as theirs, especially when I just finished reading sources that claimed that the BBC were disappointed when they didn't get to produce the series themselves. Are you going to be requesting a 3O or not? If not, I shall. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If I am a fan of The Crown then I'm a POV-pusher but if I'm not a fan then I don't know what I'm talking about. Can't fault that logic, I suppose. I am self-reverting... Firebrace (talk) 10:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Misinterpretation. The logic is the outstanding number of sources (one simply needs to Google them and there they are) that state that the series is produced by Netflix, that it's not just a series Netflix has gained the licence for to release, which makes it an American production. Also being a Left Banks production makes it British, and hence, American-British. Again, if you want a third opinion, you're more than welcome to submit it. And it isn't 3-to-1, it's 3-to-every editor who's edited this article and left American part (even though discussions aren't a vote), as part of an unspoken consensus that the content is acceptable and does not require removing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

What you have is lazy journalists Googling The Crown and taking their information from Wikipedia. Until today, the article wrongly said that The Crown was the most expensive series ever produced by Netflix, and it is in this context that "produced by Netflix" appears in those sources which you are quoting. They got it from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia got it from nowhere – the reference we have been using doesn't even say that it was produced by Netflix. [1] However, I am not going to report you for breaking the three-revert rule, and the error can stand as testament to the futility of Wikipedia as a project. Firebrace (talk) 11:24, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You have no source that backs up that their content is copied from Wikipedia. I think you'd find that a lot less websites do that than you expect. And I believe that you have miscounted; however, I will not be reverting any other editors further, and have invited the IP editor, having come here for their first edit, to also discuss on the topic. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You have no source that backs up that a lot less websites get their content from Wikipedia than I expect. See? - Futile. I wish you the best of luck discussing this with the IP editors and reaching an agreement with them. I'm done... Firebrace (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently you are, since the only argument you can create is turning my own back at me. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:45, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Is your own argument not good enough for you? It wasn't an argument but a demonstration of why this discussion is pointless; and why, ultimately, Wikipedia can never work as the project that was envisioned at the beginning. It's so bad it's not even funny. Firebrace (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Your view on Wikipedia has been noted. However, a many number of editors disagree, and that's why we strive to make it a better place for all. Back onto the topic of the origin country for this series, for any other editors who wish to contribute, a further source can be found here, and I quote: [I]t is exactly the sort of gold-standard British production that one might expect to find on British television. But in fact The Crown is a production by the American-owned internet streaming service Netflix. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources seem to suggest that this a British series, with a British cast (with one notable exception), British production company, British directors, and a British writer. The only thing that makes it American is that the American company Netflix has paid for it (although Netflix is a much more global company these days). I've had a look at a few other Netflix series articles that have been produced in another country, such as Black Mirror, Lovesick, Marseille, Glitch, and Club de Cuervos. None of these articles claim that these series are "American-British" (or "American-French" etc). Netflix hasn't commissioned The Crown because they want an American show; it is because they want a British show, and is why they want French, Mexican, Italian, Australian, and German shows. By all means mention that Netflix is an American company, but it is ludicrous to claim that the show itself is "American-British". Somethingwickedly (talk) 15:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

So, the fact that is it a production by Netflix, not just paid for by it, holds no standing? Then there's the explicit claim that it is an American series per my previous post - there seemed to have been consensus for over a year that the series was plainly American; only recently has it been disputed. That particular article, I pulled straight from the official social media for the series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia's own guidelines, the production companies determine the nationality, not the cast (which does include Americans, just for the record), crew or filming locations. The Crown was produced by Netflix as an original production, and by Left Bank Productions, a British subsidiary of Sony Pictures Entertainment (of Culver City, CA). It was commissioned and produced by and American owned company for an American owned network in collaboration with a British production company owned by an American film and television studio. This is an American show with some British involvement. What's ludicrous is to try to brand it otherwise. Wave the Union flag all you care to, but the show exists because of Netflix, and American-British is the accurate description. (BTW, Alex, Victoria is British-American; it's a Masterpiece co-production that is replacing Downton Abbey here in January).

The sooner everyone adjusts to the fact that American/British collaborations are becoming increasingly commonplace, the happier everyone will be. The BBC and ITV routinely seek out American co-producers, such as Masterpiece and BBC America, as partners. Downton Abbey would not exist if Masterpiece hadn't co-produced, and its American producer, Rebecca Eaton was part of the production team accepting the honorary BAFTA. And these American producers aren't silent partners with a checkbook; they're actively involved. When Sherlock won its Emmy awards, its show runner (Steven Moffat), it's British producer (Sue Vertue) and its American producer (Rebecca Eaton) stood on the stage with statues in hand. We're slugging it out over the same issue with Poldark as well, another Masterpiece co-production. Nationalism is all well and good until it blinds an editor to the reality of how a lot of TV is made these days.

What folks may not realize is that the vast majority of television production activity takes place away from the shooting location; rather it happens in offices that can be miles away (for example, the production office for Person of Interest was in LA, and the show filmed in New York.) The same situation exists for the new Clarkson/May/Hammond show The Grand Tour, which is an American/British production from Amazon Studios. They acknowledge again and again in interviews that they are produced by an American company, and that makes the show American. It's no different for The Crown. --Drmargi (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I was typing out a long reply about the evidence for and against calling it a British show, or an American-British show, or something else entirely, but I just thought that none of this really matters. I'm happy to contribute to an encyclopedia, but trivial changes like this are decisions for the bureaucrats really, because it doesn't actually make any difference to an article either way, because it is such a small, trivial change either way. Here's a quote, “they need to show that the creative control resides in the U.K. and that the initiative and creative development is driven from the U.K. ... ‘The Crown,’ ‘The Night Manager,’ and ‘War and Peace’ may not have been eligible under the old rules because they had international funding, but under these new rules they will be because all the creativity is driven from the U.K.,” Baehr said." Yanks: Cash; Brits: Creativity; American-British, British, or British-American: Any. There are far more important decisions on a site like this. Somethingwickedly (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The quote has to do with eligibility for BAFTAs, identifying what makes a show eligible for their awards in given categories; any award show will have rules for eligibility. That has no bearing here. Moreover, it's far from a reliable source for the role Netflix played in the production. --Drmargi (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess my question is Netflix a production parter, or just the distributor. As far as I know, on most Netflix original series, such as House of Cards or any of the Marvel ones, Netflix is only the distributor. I haven't started the series yet, but what do the credits have at the end? Is it only Left Bank Pictures? In that case it would be 100% British, which is honestly what I thought about the series going into it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First of all, HoC is produced by Netflix. The Crown is produced by Netflix. See the cited article from the (British) Telegraph, which is sourcing the identification of the show as American. --Drmargi (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Then yes, I'd say it's American-British, or British-American, what have you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: At 55:55, episode one: © 2016 Left Bank Pictures (Television) Limited. Firebrace (talk) 14:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the end credits myself and in the actual credits, as Firebrace provided, only Left Bank Pictures is credited. However, Left Bank Pictures and Sony Television both have cards after the credits, so since Sony Television is an American company, it is a joint country production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

According to Netflix and Left Bank Pictures, The Crown was "produced by Left Bank in association with Sony Pictures Television". [2] [3] We don't know the extent of that association and whether it truly makes this an American-British series, but we're not here to speculate, just to find reliable sources. It definitely wasn't produced by Netflix, which is only the distributor. The Telegraph has got it wrong... Firebrace (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Sony Pictures Television is American. And the end credits indicate three producers: Netflix, SPT and Left Bank, and one of the three listed executive producers is from Netflix. You can't simply brush aside the Telegraph. They're a reliable source. This is increasingly sounding WP:IDLI

I think at this point The Telegraph source is incorrect because it is saying the series is American because of Netflix. As I and Firebrace pointed out, Netflix isn't a production parter, just the distributor. We'd need to put a source for it being American because of Sony Pictures, which I think the press release Firebrace just added would suffice. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Where is your source that Netflix is just the distributor and not a production partner? I don't see one; you're making an assumption. The Telegraph is a reliable source, and we have to go by it. Moreover, you're ignoring SONY PICTURES TELEVISION, which is a producer and of which Left Bank Pictures is a division. It all originates in Culver City, California. --Drmargi (talk) 17:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

The actual credits for the series, as I mentioned in my comment above. In the actual rolling credits, © 2016 Left Bank Pictures (Television) Limited is credited. Once those complete, company cards for both Sony Pictures Television and Left Bank are seen. That's it. So they are the two production companies, with Netflix as the distributor. Left Bank is a British production subsidy of Sony, which is American. It's British-American (or American-British). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Why did The Telegraph name Netflix as a producer but not the other two companies? My guess is that they saw "most expensive drama produced by Netflix" on Wikipedia a few days ago (before it said Netflix and Left Bank Pictures) and thought Netflix was the sole producer. I can't see any other reason why they would omit the two main production companies. As I pointed out above, we even have Netflix saying that it was produced by Left Bank Pictures in association with Sony Pictures Television. If it was also produced by Netflix then why didn't they say "produced by Netflix and Left Bank Pictures in association with Sony Pictures Television"? The issue now is not whether The Crown is American-British, but that we shouldn't be saying it is the most expensive drama produced by Netflix in the Production section, because Netflix is only the distributor. Firebrace (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

As Sony Pictures Television is owned by the Japanese Sony, maybe we should change the description to Japanese-American-British. Same thing, no? 88.105.164.202 (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Again with the "Wikipedia loop" claims, with no source to back this up. As you said, it's your guess. Meaning it has no standing here. Sources stated that it's the most expensive drama Netflix has produced, so that's what we go by. And I'm guessing that the American-British debate is now settled as, indeed, American-British? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we can simply reword the statement to accurately portray the info, without it being incorrect. So "The first 10-part season was the most expensive drama produced by Netflix and Left Bank Pictures to date." can become something along the lines of "The first 10-part season, produced by Left Bank Pictures and Sony Pictures Television,[source for both these production companies] was the most expensive Netflix original drama series to date.[sources for "most expensive" quote]" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've seen user The|Whovian try to change British-made films to American so many times, When they are all produced by British Production companies and by British Filmakers, I suspect that he doesn't like the British films being British. He tries to take the credit for American — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.175.242.68 (talk) 07:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The Fact is the show Being fully made by British prostitution company. And being published and distributed by american company Netflix doesn't make it American-British — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.88.180 (talk) 07:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please bother to read this discussion. We have all come to the consensus that the series is American-British. It'll be easier to understand once you realize that American-British collaborations are becoming more and more common. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This tv series is a 100% British-made, made, produced by famous British producers and filmmakers, British production company Left Bank Pictures, filmed in The United Kingdom, the story of British monarchy. Nothing involved to American, there no American filmmakers involved or making in this TV series. The Amecian company Netflix is only publishing, promoting and distributing this TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.55.88.221 (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

All of this has already been said. Now read the discussion, and read the replies to these comments, and you will understand. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Having just had a look through this whole conversation it does some pretty clear that this is a fully British production. The BBC source clearly states British whereas as The Telegraph source only states that Netflix is an American company, not that the show is American. The Telegraph at other times has described the series as a "game changer for British drama" and not made an reference to the US at all. Similarly the Radiotimes refers to The Crown as "possibly the most expensive British drama yet made". Plently of reliable sources there. Ebonelm (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

What the Telegraph source does is explicitly state that it's American; it states that the series "is a production by the American-owned internet streaming service Netflix", and therefore, the series is American. And if you've read the entire discussion, I'm not seeing any arguments against the more valid points Drmargi and those that have pointed out that it is also a Sony production (hence, further American). Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I've read any number of British reviews noting that the series is a Netflix production, and discussing "Netflix gamble", etc. That plus Sony Pictures Television = American. --Drmargi (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify again that it is also an American production because of Sony Pictures Television, not because of Netflix. This is from the end credits of the show, nothing else. Netflix is just the "channel" that the show airs on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

We've often been down this road before with one of the editors here arguing exactly the opposite position when UK productions are distributed in the US and Canada, the British Film Commission does not quibble or prevaricate, The Crown is a British production produced for the US streaming network Netflix who act as distributor. Sony have one credit as a worldwide distributor and for the record, distributors do not produce television shows or film features, they distribute. In closing, I don't know exactly what the problem is anyway, the article gets a US country tag as Netflix are distributor! I am often amazed at how some editors feel a need to stamp 'made in america' on everything when clearly that is not the case. Warm regards. Twobells (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Gain a new consensus for this alternate to the existing discussion before implementing your edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Twobells: You obviously didn't read the discussion. Left Bank and Sony Television are the production companies on the series, British and American, respectively. Netflix is the distributor. Thus, per Sony Television, it is also an American series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We've been down this rabbit hole with Twobells over and over again. As is always the case, his sourcing is dicey at best, and self-serving. The British Film Commission site is about marketing in/to Britain and is pure PR. It's not a reliable source, and certainly not one that supersedes the far more reliable ones provided. The fact remains that Netflix commissioned The Crown from Left Bank and Sony Pictures Television, and serves as a producer, not just a distributor. The same is true of The Grand Tour on Amazon, in whose article the same misguided nationalism is resulting in inaccurate portrayal of the show as solely British (jeez, you only had to watch the opening segment to see that's not the case.) Without Netflix and Amazon, these productions don't happen. The times, they are a changin' --Drmargi (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we go, the wiki editorial version of poor academia, if editors do not personally like the conclusion they challenge the source, to suggest that the UK Film Commission as a source is 'dicey' is plainly ludicrous, showing neutral editors how desperate you become when a US tag isn't stamped on everything, but to then accuse other editors of 'nationalism' when they seek to bring an article back to neutrality is frankly sickening hypocrisy of the very worst sort. Twobells (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please contribute to the discussion by commenting on content, not contributors, and by giving further discussion to support your view on the topic. You need to gain a new consensus, against the one that supports the series being American-British, before you can reinstate your edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Twobells, you do need consensus before reinstating the edit, as this has become a controversial topic between editors and hence the status quo needs to remain while the topic is discussed. If you just plan to add in the edits and not discuss any further, you may be faced with a report for edit-warring. You're adding "international" where the countries ought to be, while at the same time arguing against the fact that it isn't international; you're contradicting yourself. Gain a new consensus, or leave it be. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

You're not partial at all are you? If you took the actual time to read the comments above you would direct your criticisms where they belong. Still, I'm not surprised, the quality of editing on Wikipedia has become a farce, mashing up countries in the lede is not how editors should go about creating quality articles, but what do you do? you revert my attempts at following Wikipedia best practice. You do not mash together countries in the lede, you use international co-production if the show has more than one (by country) producer and the only reason it has become 'controversial' is because certain editors labelled it so, which then allows them to game the system. One editor even goes as far as to show their ignorance of Wiki best practice by blurting out that they think 'wiki best practice' is what I think when they reverted my edit, all they have to do is check Wikipedia Manual of Style We don't even need that in the lede as the production is clearly British with well-sourced citations attached (which were hurriedly deleted) In closing, I have added a NPOV tag as once again certain editors seek to brand articles with a 'USA!' stamp as a result of some sort of misguided nationalism. Twobells (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because I am not agreeing with you, doesn't automatically make me wrong, which seems to be the case through yours eyes. Your tag has been removed as it is, yet again, an attempt to force your personal opinion against the overwhelming consensus held at this discussion page. You have not linked to any policies that dictate that a hyphenated version of the countries involved in production is not to be included. You claim that it is British only, then claim that it is international; do get your stories straight. It has not been labelled so, and the system has not been gamed - you have just not read the entire discussion and the multitude of solid and reliable sources that state otherwise, against your few unreliable ones. Learn that co-productions are a thing. Learn that not everything goes in the way of the opinion of one editor; you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors need to recognise that users DrMargi and AlexTheWhovian seek to stamp any British article with a 'made in the USA' stamp, it is extremely nationalistic and when AlexTheWhovian says 'there is a consensus' here trust me there isn't, they just continue to edit until editors give up reverting back to the last reliable best version. Twobells (talk) 8:47 pm, Today (UTC+10.5)

You are now the only editor arguing against it; understand that Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity. Besides, with the update of WP:TVLEAD, the country is not to be included if it is multi-nationality (which you oviously support, given that you keep adding "international") or unclear. Solves it all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment According to this Variety article the creative development came from the UK but it was internationally funded. On that basis you could argue it is a co-production because it wouldn't have been made without American support but on the other you could argue it is British because that is where the series was developed and produced i.e. it is creatively British. Then again, that's why we have WP:NOR because it is not our place to analyze information and draw conclusions. For example, the British Film Institute has the internationally funded The Night Manager down as British but Downton Abbey as British-American, so it isn't always as simple as identifying where the production is based or who is stumping up the cash. What we really need are sources that explicitly catalog the nationality, such as the BFI database, but unfortunately the BFI doesn't have an entry for it yet. The field could just be left blank until it is added to the BFI database, unless somebody knows of another reputable database we can use? Betty Logan (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Or on another basis, we're arguing that because it was Left Bank Pictures and Sony Pictures Television, it's automatically British and American, no discussion required. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You as an editor do not know to what extent and in which way these two companies were involved in the production so it is impossible to make an informed judgment about whether the program is British, American, or both. To confer the nationalities of various production companies on to the production itself is WP:Original research. British, American and Spanish production companies were involved in the production of The Night Manager but both the BFI and Allmovie regard it as a British series. On the other hand British and American production companies were involved in the production of Downton Abbey and while Allmovie regards it as British the BFI regard it as a British-American co-production. As you can see the relationship between the nationality of a production and the nationality of the various production companies involved in making it is not considered a tautological one by reliable sources, so Wikipedia editors should not be treating it as such. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Except that Wikipedia has its own guidelines on the nationality of a series, and doesn't follow what differing sources state. It doesn't matter how much the companies were involved - the matter is that they were, and hence both nationalities are credited. Again, this is per Wikipedia guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines do not trump policy. If there is a conflict then policy takes precedence. If secondary sources regard a production to be British or American-British and the guidliens contradict that then what the sources state take precedence over what the guidelines say. Betty Logan (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Again: If Every source differs on what nationality a series is, if that is the case, Wikipedia guidelines come into play and decide what it is. That's what takes precedence. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with such actions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, they do not. Guidelines never trump policy under any cicumstances, and I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the difference between policies and guidelines. If different sources say different things then that is what WP:DUE (a policy) exists for. If sources overwhelmingly favor one nationality then we go with those, but if other nationalities have significant representation then they should be included. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem extremely unfamiliar with the widely-accepted methods used by the WikiProject Television. It is extremely obvious that sources can't be used if they all contradict each other. If you want a policy to follow, then go by IAR - in this case, guidelines would be acceptable over "policies". Given that you admit that other countries have significant representation here, I'm not sure why this discussion is still going ahead. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

IAR applies to rules that prohibit the improvement of the encyclopedia, it is not a "get out clause" to be deployed by editors when they want to ride roughshod over the five pillars of Wikipedia. You have not put forward a credible argument as to why adhering to established Wikiepdia policy in this case is detrimental to improving the encyclopedia, and why deploying parochial project guidelines in their place is a superior way of doing it. If project guidelines put article content at odds with what the majority of reliable sources say then that is obviously not an improvement for the article. And finally I have not "admitted" other countries have representation here; I have no view on that particular aspect. All I see is a source commenting on the nationality of the production company, not on the nationality of the show, which is an application of WP:Orginal research IMO. If you want to make a claim about the nationality of the show then please produce sources that explicitly address the nationality of the show in accordance with established policies such as WP:V, WP:OR and WP:DUE. These are the policies that govern article content, not Wikiproject guidelines. Betty Logan (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I have put forward arguments again and again. Simply because you, an editor who doesn't even seem to have edited this article at all, because you do not agree with them, that does not make them "not credible". I'm really done banging my head against a brick wall here. Let's put this simply: Are there sources that state that this series is British-American? Yes? Okay, great, source it per policy. Regarding the intro, use the guideline about not including it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:35, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Betty, you simply cannot ignore SONY PICTURES TELEVISION, of which Left Banks Pictures is a subsidiary, and hide behind British media sources in order to brand this production as British. It was commissioned and funded (a production step) by Netflix, and produced by Left Banks Pictures and Sony Pictures Television. That's substantively American involvement. The BBC has an agenda; it wanted to be part of the production and Netflix said no (see Daldrey's comments in the interview with the British media on YouTube). That was a production decision by the American company that started the whole thing.

We've got to adjust to a new order of things where streaming media companies like Netflix and Amazon are involved. The article on The Grand Tour massively misrepresents that show as British based on an off-the cuff comment by one host, and some intensely nationalistic ownership by one editor. Just as Netflix did with this production, The Grand Tour is wholly funded and is produced by Amazon Studios, and American corporation. The production on the ground may take place in the UK, but at the top level, shows like this are produced by American companies, which are making production decisions, not just throwing money at them and distributing them. --Drmargi (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Just want to add this source to have if looking back on the discussion: Variety's article on SPE Chairman Michael Lynton stepping down: "Other notable shows from the studio [Sony] at present include... Netflix’s “The Crown”". (Quote edits by me for simplicity and clarity.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, buddy. It also notes the location of Sony Pictures Television as Culver City, CA, as I have pointed out several times in the discussion above (having driven by on the way to Trader Joe's on more than one occasion). --Drmargi (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at what productions have been made by Left Bank Pictures as it very well may be a production company established to handle projects out of Britain just as Miramax handles what some might call artsy films for Sony. Originally Miramx handled the films that were developed by independent produces and then brought into the Sony structure. Yes, i guess we all agree that Left Bank is a subsidiary but for what purpose within Sony's structure.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Marriage plan

There is the old adage when phrases similar to "holding up" are used--did his arms get tired. Holding up can also be thought of as supporting the delay although hurdle I imagine is suppose to make clear that there were efforts to delay.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay? You seem to have fixed this already? -- Alex^TW 04:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Some people do not take an edit summary as justifiable unless you spell it out for them. Some people at WP tend to take a proprietary interest in an article.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

As strange as that it, that's up to them. Edit summaries are for explaining edits, talk pages are for discussing disputes. -- Alex^TW 10:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, someone reverts what has been changed. That is a dispute. Guess what? Do i want to attempt to explain with the limited space for the edit summary or go to a place where the dispute can possibly be averted. That is why the talk page can be useful instead of being flippant.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 10:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Language

If it's a British series about a British subject, shouldn't the article be written in British English? Headhitter (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, given that it's not a British series... Either way, per MOS:RETAIN, when a certain style of English has been established within an article, it does not need to change without solid reasoning and a consensus to do so. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, but given the nature of what it covers, and the fact that Left Bank is definitely the "lead" production company on the series, British English seems appropriate, if it isn't already (still avoiding the actual article as I have yet to complete the series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Also, note that in the UK a TV programme is shown is SERIES: not "seasons", which is a weird American way of referring to a series. In British English, a season refers to Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter - or anything which specifically pertains to those calendar periods (for example, when you talk about last season's fashion). Since TV programmes are not produced on the basis of one series per calendar season, it is jarring to refer to them as such. This is a British programme, so "series" should be used. EuroSong ^talk 15:21, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

It is not weird as the tradition use to be in American tv that one part of the year was covered by first broadcast of a show then the other part of the year had rerun of the programme. What reinforces in American tv "seasons" is that now a series is only 13 programs then the next part of that season you have reruns to complete half the year. Now there are new programmes started in the Spring with the same number of shows then reruns, the reruns of reruns until the Fall comes round. What some Americans may call weird is British tv not starting on the hour or half hour. BBC America has its share of coming up with filler when British programmes go to the US.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Cast table

In order to better illustrate the continuity of characters against a changing cast, I propose the following table to replace the current list:

Character	Actor	Appearances
		Season 1 (2016)	Season 2 (2017)	Season 3 (2019)
Queen Elizabeth II	Claire Foy	Starring
	Olivia Coleman			Starring
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh	Matt Smith	Starring
	Tobias Menzies			Starring
Princess Margaret	Vanessa Kirby	Starring
	Helena Bonham Carter			Starring
King George VI	Jared Harris	Starring
Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother	Victoria Hamilton	Starring
	Marion Bailey			Starring
Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma	Greg Wise	Starring
	TBA			Starring
Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor	Alex Jennings	Starring
	TBA			Starring
Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon	Matthew Goode		Starring
	Ben Daniels			Starring
Queen Mary	Eileen Atkins	Starring

Perhaps this should only be extended to Royal Family characters who appear across the seasons? Additionally any other prominent characters that do so (such as members of the Royal Household, etc.)

--80.193.157.38 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. These wretched things take up gangs of space and provide precious little information. WP prefers information be imparted via narrative; the narrative descriptions of the characters contain this information and far more in a far more concise way. The Crown is produced by Netflix, an American company, and has a wide American viewership. The article has to make allowances for the fact that readers won't know who these historical figures are, and provide more information than it does. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We already began discussing this here. I'm still in support of the two options I presented in that discussions. Either:

Claire Foy (seasons 1-2) and Olivia Colman (season 3) as Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II.

or

Princess Elizabeth and later Queen Elizabeth II (portrayed by Claire Foy (seasons 1-2) and Olivia Colman (season 3))

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Either option Favre1fan93 proposes is far superior to the table. Why is it that people love those clunky tables so much? I think they're done for the sake of creating a colorful table, they're nearly always created by IPs, and and all the narrative description of the characters is lost, replaced by an oversized table with trivial information. They remind me of an attendance chart in a classroom. The critical point: the table and narrative do not present the same information, and the table is not a good alternative to the narrative. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 22:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Lots of people understand things easier with a visual aid - that's why the tables are so popular. TheMysteriousEditor (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The table is in no way equivalent to the narrative; it's an over-decorated billing list, and no more, and as such, a useless "visual aid". enWP policy says narrative is preferable, and narrative is needed to explain these characters. The table provides none of that. Moreover, these tables are rarely set up to be accessible to screen readers, and regardless of what my British and Australian brethren like to assume, this is an American website (registered in San Francisco) which must abide by American accessibility requirements. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 18:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)