Talk:Merlin series 4

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

We're all looking forward to Merlin (Series 4). One thing lots of people are hoping for is for Arthur to take place as King for Series 5 if the BBC decide to renew it,which if Arthur does become King in this series and find out that Merlin has magic would make our day. We may see Emily Blunt take place as a Cast regular which would kind of level the characters since we may not see Morgana or Morgouse but I'd expect it some time in the series (Perhaps Series Finale)and to see Arthur take place of the Thrown and Become King of Camelot. Merlin, reveal your secret to Arthur when he becomes king and Uther is dead. Anthony Head may be leaving as regular cast this year.

I don't think Emily Blunt will be in Merlin this series; there is no mention of it in any of the latest Merlin news releases (or even in the latest rumours, which I spell UK-style because that's where all the best Merlin rumours come from).Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uther Pendragon[edit]

Well, now we know that even though Uther's gone, that can't happen, given Arthur's reaction to what happened to his father. However, the BBC is being confusing still listing Anthony/Uther in the cast lists...flashbacks, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.218.118 (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am wondering if he should be moved to guest cast? since he was only in two episodes and now wont be in any mroe unless he is used as flashbacks--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Morgause[edit]

On a similar theme to Uther discussion, should Morgause be moved to guest cast as she died in the first episode? --Limolover talk 01:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Casting[edit]

FYI to anybody who's watching this page: I've merged the section on "Cast" and "Casting" because I think we should try to limit ourselves to just one section on the cast, even though that leaves us with a measly four sections. If anybody can come up with a good argument for two different (but consecutive!) sections on the cast then I'm willing to listen. Also, I've added updates to the projected cast list and cited my source.

Peace, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 23:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest to remove unsourced cast, I fear it might only be based on rumours. For example Asa Butterfield wrote not to be part of the cast this series on his (verified) twitter account. Ochristi (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not include unsourced cast, especially guest cast. However, one of the comments (at one point) asked people not to include cast of unaired episodes and there is no wiki policy to support that. If either the studio, network, or actor have announced plans to appear and their are reliable sources documenting this then it is appropriate to include that information in this page. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 13:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colour[edit]

I did try and change the table colour to green as it is easier to read. However this was reverted back to silver. Do certain series have to be certain colours? --Limolover talk 01:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently for some reason it is convention to use the DVD-Box cover colour theme, for the coloration of the boxes/tables. I do not know where it is stated, would have to search, but I do not care that much about such aspects. ;) I agree it is not the best contrast, white on #C0C0C0. What do you think about switching the text colour to black instead? Put an example below. — Ochristi (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
№ # Title
№ # Title

Recurring Cast -- Number of Episodes[edit]

Do we really want to put the number of episodes each recurring cast member appears in the series? I propose removing these, because a) it is a type of spoiler, and b) it is prone to error. (The count for Lancelot was just upped today.) I suggest it would be better not to list the number of episodes, at least not until this series has aired in its entirety. Comments? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, as it has to be maintained and on each iteration has to be recounted, as it is not clear if it is up-to-date, then we would have to agree on whether aired episodes count or every announced, then announced by whom, which cast listing is reliable, as even bbc and other top sources make errors, so I say remove. ;) Ochristi (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio[edit]

I tagged the article because it uses summaries released by BBC, which I do not believe to be released in a free license allowing reuse here. When summaries are rewritten the notice can be removed. See WP:NFC and WP:CFAQ for more information. – Ochristi (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA'S SERVERS ARE LOCATED IN SIDE THE UNITED STATES[1].

THEREFORE, COPYRIGHT LAWS FROM THE USA APPLY[2].
THE USAGE OF THIS MATERIAL FALLS UNDER THE FAIR USE ACT[3].
TAKING A LOOK AT YOUR OWN REFERENCE AT wp:cfaq, the "FAIR USE" SECTION SPELLS THIS ALL OUT QUITE CLEARLY.
Therefore - the little "Copyvio" at the top of this Season 4 page is bogus and should be removed. You tagged it with the Copyvio because you "do not believe it to be released in a free license"? Where is your source for this other than yourself? If you have none then you have no business tagging this page. Sit down SIR!

--184.100.187.191 (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text from the BBC does not qualify as fair use (see Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text). Morever, the copyright terms at the BBC are quite explicit:

Copyright notice

About us

All rights, including copyright, in the content of these BBC web pages are owned or controlled for these purposes by the BBC.

In accessing the BBC's web pages, you agree that you may only download the content for your own personal non-commercial use.

Except where expressly stated otherwise, you are not permitted to copy, broadcast, download, store (in any medium), transmit, show or play in public, adapt or change in any way the content of these BBC web pages for any other purpose whatsoever without the prior written permission of the BBC.[1]

The material must be properly integrated into the wikiarticle (see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotations, Wikipedia:Quotations, and, again, Wikipedia:Plagiarism).

So, you may remain standing Ochristi. — SpikeToronto 10:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



It does not matter what notices or copyright explanations are given on the BBC website. Fair Use supersedes any warnings they might decide to put on their site. What it comes down to when claiming fair use are these questions: does the listing of this information not compete with the original work? Does it enhance the original work? Does it promote the original work? If you answer yes to all or even some of these questions then you can claim fair use. Therefore, fair use wins. The content listed on this page falls under Fair Use. The flag is unwarranted and false.--184.100.187.191 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



Fair use does nto apply to this, it applies to images and certain text, if you usinga quote but nto basically copying the entire source word for word, reqrite the summaries plain and simple im goign to remove them them for now f this is undone please some revert--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]



BBC allows the use of episode descriptions. http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/personal.shtml - Please read section 3.2.3 (i) :

Additional Terms for particular BBC Online Services may allow you to display the BBC Content on your website, but you may not display BBC Content where it is on or in connection with Excluded Products or Services --ChokoPek (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have examined the copyright claims and have found no violation. I've removed the tag and uncommented the episode descriptions. However, since these are in fact word for word copies of the BBC descriptions, we need to reference them. Anyone have any preferences as to best accomplish this? A footnote after each description would suffice but it would also be tiresomely redundant, as they all have the same source. Suggestions? Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 21:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely it should be clear to everyone that stealing word for word episodes descriptions from BBC is wrong. And besides - they descriptions are very poor. For example, the episodes where Uther dies doesn't even mention Uther's name, let alone his death. Surely the descriptions should be absolutely full of spoilers. Nfitz (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was recently rased on Merlin Series 5 here. It was agreed that although the BBC may give permission, it is not however in the interest of Wikipedia to use them as they dont portray the right Tone and in fact sound like a TV guide, which Which Wikipedia is not. So, they do need to changed so they arnt CopyVio's MisterShiney ✉ 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wiki Meta Info http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_servers. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ US Federal Law http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl100.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ Stanford Law http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Repeated Disruptive Edits[edit]

An editor here is making repeated disruptive edits to this page. I personally do not care what variety of English is used on this page nor do I care whether series or season is used within the text (IMO either word can be used in any variety of English) but the article must follow WP's policy on the use of English varieties.

This policy states that the article must be consistent WITH THE EXCEPTION of certain text that must be preserved as is, with direct quotations and the titles of references in particular explicitly exempted from the consistency rule. Therefore, WE CANNOT CHANGE the title of the reference used by the author of that sentence. Further, even if a DVD exists with the "new" title, if it wasn't the edition used for by the author as a reference then we cannot change it.

The second edit is less controversial in my view but still wrong, as the editor is taking a zero-tolerence policy towards the word "season" which results in a table with two columns of numbers with the same heading but different values. I don't care if you want to use series instead of season but then, as the editor making this change, YOU are responsible for coming up with an alternate but acceptable heading for the column that gives the multi-year episode number. If you leave it like this then someone (probably me) will revert it again.

I am asking the editor to voluntarily revert these edits or I will do so. Also, if the disruptive edits continue, I will escalate this and let an admin decide. I have no problem with that. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are being as disruptive as the other editor if you do revert you will be violating 3RR so i suggest you consider what you doing, you are wrong it is a british show so uses series as is common for all britihs shows on wikipedia the problem relates to series twice which i have now fixed--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew thank you for fixing the table headings. I think "Episode #" and "Series #" are a good choice for this page and I've updated the pages for the other three series to match. This does not address the fact that someone changed the title of the DVD that was used as a reference. That must still be fixed as it is a violation of policy to change titles for the sake of variational consistency. (The DVDs were released in the US under the name as it appeared before the edit so one can't assume that the original version was an error. See here. Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


no problem, i only reviewed 2 of the reverts i never seen anything about the dvd changes, if oyu can post the reviiosn which the dvd section was changed i will review it, if you are correct and it is getting changed from what the source is saying then reverting will be seen as removing vandelism so wont violate 3RR--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you didn't see the other edit is because it was actually against the List of Merlin episodes‎‎, which I just noticed now. I should have started this discussion there because that is IMO the more serious problem. (I thought I was in the right place!) The edit in question is here. (I think there is a better way to point to a version diff but I don't know how to do it, sorry.) Cheers, Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 20:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion to use 'episodes' and 'series' is a good one. Whilst I respect that I should have offered a viable alternative, you have no idea how many of these I have had to change! It's very time consuming and recently i've been very busy. Am I right in thinking we've reached a good compromise now? If not, I'm watching this page so just reply here. Regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Merlin (series 4). 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 18:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Merlin_series_4&oldid=1216312288"