This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter. Television Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Drozdv.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The MOS is only a guideline. As Aussie stated, many pronounce it as it was(/is currently listed), and it shouldn't be changed arbitrarily each time somebody with a different way to say it comes along. I agree with him, and as such, it is up to you to discuss the change. Your recent edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after an edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:18, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now it states "sixth season of the series [...] the final season of the series", in the same sentence. How is that any better? It's just repetitive. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting an article to align with the MoS is never "arbitrary". Aussie has the excuse that he clearly didn't realise that there aren't any options within Mos:poss, but I am sure you will have checked. Pronunciation is not relevant as it is the same regardless of the punctuation. On such a trivial issue any sensible editor should just accept the Mos (or challenge it there); I agree the alternative wording is inferior but it saves having a fruitless argument. MapReader (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed the discussion but this might be a solution:
"In January 2019, it was announced that the series will end with/after the 20-episode sixth season, which was ordered on September 12, 2017 ahead of its fifth-season premiere."

--TheVampire (talk) 17:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on historical accuracies, the sentence about Rollo keeps being removed, I think, based on a misunderstanding. It is indicating that Rollo did not murder his own men, as represented in the show. The fact that at later times Normans fought VIkings in Italy is entirely irrelevant to that point. More broadly, though, pointing out niggling inaccuracies regarding the Siege of Paris storyline is the absolute least of the problem with historical inaccuracies, and doesn't merit the level of detail it is being given here by one editor, particularly when we have no reliable source for this set of errors (a source where some commentator has drawn attention to the errors, not our own conclusions based on historical sources). Agricolae (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i'm so eager to know why my paragraphs pointing out historical inaccuracies of vikings tv series have been frequently deleted. i first wrote on the page of vikings (season 3). then an editor deleted my whole section on the basis that there's another main page about this topic. but strangely, i found a similar section in vikings (season 5). i'm wondering if double standard came into play. anyway i removed my paragraphs to vikings (tv series 2013) in which a section of such kind is allowed. and again, my words were deleted on the ground that my explanations were too detailed. i didn't know in the first place that everyone has to simplify the inaccuracies. but fine, i shortened my paragraphs but still all my words were deleted again for being out of proportion. however, another paragraph detailing inaccuracies of viking's religious practices remains untouched. please give me an explanation. as you all said. wikipedia is about consensus. as one of the editors, my consent also matters. my consent also carries the same weight.Berserk Kerberos (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two reasons why such a focus on the inaccuracies in portraying the siege of Paris, that was represented in a few episodes out of more than a hundred, is inappropriate for this section. The first is that were we to list every single niggling inaccuracy, every person given the wrong familial relationship, every amorous tryst without historical basis, every historical event not depicted with absolute precision, every participant omitted or not given the weight in the portrayal we think they deserve, etc., then the Historical inaccuracy section would dwarf the rest of the article. It would be out of WP:PROPORTION, and it is likewise disproportionate to give that level of coverage for just a few episodes and ignore all of the similar inaccuracies and omissions in the rest fo the episodes. Second, it represents a form of Original Research on our part to do so. We, as Wikipedia editors, are not fact-checkers. We don't look at the original work and critique it ourselves, squirreling out inaccuracies based on our own viewing of the series. We don't get to decide which characters or events should have been given more screen time, or which details or people should not have been omitted. We use sources, and by this I do not mean sources documenting the authentic historical record. There are too many errors to list them all, so it is when a published critic highlights an error that makes that error noteworthy, not our own personal opinion. Agricolae (talk) 17:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

first of all i'm not citing my personal opinion. i'm citing what's pointed out by scholars. second, i can try to further shorten it, but the inaccuracies those episodes must, at least, be briefly pointed out. some articles are pretty long and detailed. i don't think this one should be exceptionBerserk Kerberos (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What scholar viewed the show and said this specific aspect of it was wrong? What is the source for that critique of the show? (Again, not for the authentic historical record, for the fact that this particular decision of the screenwriter of historical fiction merits special mention?) No, the inaccuracies in a couple of specific episodes do not need to be pointed out, however briefly, because this show was so rife with historical inaccuracies that such an episode-by-episode accounting would completely dwarf the remainder of the article, if included, particularly when some of the so-called inaccuracies you personally think important are omissions rather than inaccuracies. Agricolae (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]