Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lovejoy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:50, 18 October 2011 editMarnetteD (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers333,261 edits →Barker, not picker?: r← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:58, 18 February 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,826,418 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 2 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 2 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Television}}, {{WikiProject BBC}}.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(41 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2 |counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(90d) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Lovejoy/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Lovejoy/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=

{{WikiProject Television|british-television=yes|british-television-importance=|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Television|class=C|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject BBC|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject British TV shows|class=C}}
{{WikiProject BBC|class=C|importance=mid}}
}} }}
{{archive box}}


== New note == == UK comedy and culture ==
http://mindlessones.com/2011/07/23/the-league-of-extraordinary-gentlemen-century-1969-the-annocommentations/
If you go to the above site, and search in page for "Lovejoy" you'll see what I mean. It is intentional. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Agreed, suggest reinstating previous content removal (vandalism?) under heading "Continued influence in UK comedy and culture" ] (]) 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
: Further clarification of reasoning, do not understand the previous talk discussion, however Lovejoy did have an enduring influence on UK 'alternative' comedy and culture. Personal opinion granted, but substantiated by the previous verified content. Not my contribution, and possible merit in rewrite away from bulleted format, but links to other UK comedy should be noted, and is longstanding content in this article. Anyone have further thoughts on the subject's influence? ] (]) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
::It isn't this show that has to have influence it is the trivia that requires it. Be aware that per ] just because an item was here for any length of time is not a reason for inclusion. ] | ] 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
:::Just because the item was here for a long time is not a reason for exclusion. The section does not meet the criteria for trivia. Please present a credible, substantiated case for the removal of content. Also please be aware that per ], A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Guidelines do not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. ] (]) 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
::::The ] is on you to justify their inclusion and you have not done so. Also these require secondary sources to establish broad cultural significance and none of them come anywhere close to that. No where is there WP guideline that poorly presented info is a good things. The current consensus is that this section does not belong in this article and you have not presented a single argument that has changed that to this point. ] | ] 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
::::: Agree with ] and not trying to establish broad cultural significance, rather agree with previous citated content in terms of influence in British/UK comedy. Central tennant being notability durived from the citation of numerous sources. This is the only section in the article that is remotely citated, however could you refer to ] and suggest further changes to establish new consensus. No consensus reached on this being poorly presented info, will reinstate if no further suggestions received ] (]) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
{{od}}The consensus is based on the previous conversation in the archives and the fact that I am not the editor that removed the section last month. Poorly presented info has no place in the encyclopedia anywhere and the is no section of the MoS that supports its reinstatement. You are still missing the point that it isn't the show Lovejoy that needs "secondary sources to establish broad cultural significance" it is the items in the trivia section that require it. Also you should not refactor comments or section headers on a talk page so there seems to be a ] as well as SPA problems. Until consensus has changed you should not restore the section or you will be subject to ] ] | ] 00:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
: Understand your point on broad cultural significance, but don't believe this section was trying to establish this and edit made no reference to this. Could you substantiate "poorly presented", and "trivia" under "What were you thinking?" ] and ]. ] (]) 00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
::Establishing cultural significance is what the section has to do to be included in the article. You are the one who has stated that the section is poorly presented so you will have to answer your own question. I have explained myself quite clearly so there is no response to give to your last sentence. Unless you can comment on content there is little else to repond to. ] | ] 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
::: Thanks for getting back, references to Lovejoy in UK comedy does not have to have broad cultural significance to merit inclusion as the section does not seek to establish this. The main article does not establish significance of Lovejoy in any context. The removed content is with citation, and establishes prevalence of Lovejoy references in other UK comedy. Unless you can evidence reasons why it does not do this I will lose good will, being opposed by a unsubstantiated respresentation of personal opinion as fact. I think you have more to contribute so would like you to substantiate "poorly presented", and "trivia" again under "What were you thinking?" ] and ]. If you don't want to discuss I can only revert for a second time. ] (]) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes the section does need to establish significance per the guidelines for trivia pop culture sections. You are ignoring the fact that you are the one who stated that the section is poorly presented. You have presented no proof for WWYT or ZEAL. As an SPA you need to do so. You have provided zero evidence that the current consensus should be overturned. Your choices now are ] or ]. Please do not violate ] again while those other options still exist. ] | ] 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:::: I have not violated ] I have edited, reverted, reverted well beyond a 24HR period. There is only me and you and no consensus gained. ] is just a request, familiarity is the key here. Happy to go for external, if you aren't interested. Be careful you don't violate ] while I gain opinion. ] (]) 02:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
The consensus for exclusion already exists per previous conversations. You may not reinstate it until you have explored the other options and as to ZEAL as a SPA that would seem to apply to you. You may want to see ] ] | ] 02:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
::: ] I haven't deleted, I have added. ] I have made no mention. ] I have not reported anything, so not sure what you mean. All I have tried to do is solicit your opinion under ]. Are you trolling me? I am not sure why you refuse to discuss. ] (]) 02:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
::::No trolling has occurred and you continue to restore against the current consensus. I have discussed time and time again and you have ignored it all. Until you have gained a change of consensus or obtained an outside opinion you should not be reverting. ] | ] 04:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
:::::: I have made seven requests to understand your position under guidance ]. To explain what I am thinking again, I do not believe inclusion of a section on influence of Lovejoy on other British/UK comedy is ]. You have requested reference to establish broad cultural appeal, however inline references already achieve this not about lovejoy, but for comedians such as Vic Reeves, Bob Mortimer and the League of Gentlemen. However broad cultural appeal of British comedy is not content for article Lovejoy, however it's influences are. If you would like to understand more please read the related wiki articles on these subjects e.g. League of Gentlemen etc. You seem to state ], as a defence of your personal subjective opinion of 'trivial', and I believe these are different things. If these are not your thoughts, please explain. Consensus has been achieved amongst the ten separate editors that have contributed content and citations, if you would like to change consensus it would help if you provide a list of objections and what you believe would make this content better, so a new consensus can be achieved under ]. In the meantime we will go for ] ] (]) 12:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
{{od}} The items you readded, without gaining a new consensus BTW, contain no new evidence of notability. You said that you would proceed to RFCC but obviously chose not to. That is still your next step. ] | ] 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
:FYI These edits , , , and this violate ] and may hurt your case when you file your RFCC. The dearth of responses (with the exception of the ] violation) should go some way to pointing out the notability problems. ] | ] 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


===Section break for convenience===
opening credits if anyone cares
The section is anything but a "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme" so lets break down the problems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQP7NuYkuwE


;Harry Enfield, Vic Reeves mentions
It should be noted that the opening credits listed above are for season 1. The same credits, with out the auctioneer's voice, are used for S2 -S4 (or maybe to S5). Also, the picture of Lovejoy shown when the title comes up has been updated. A third intro, basically the same, but the picture of Lovejoy shown is a painting, instead of a photograph, was introduced in S5 ( or maybe S6).
These shows parodies 100's if not 1000's of shows/commercials/films etc. Were the Lovejoy skits any more notable than any of the others that they did? Did any critics comment on them at the time. Are they still discussed or written about today - as either particularly well done bits in the shows or in relation to Lovejoy? If not then they are just indiscriminate information. BTW the source used for Enfield is a dead link and no source is provided at all for either Reeve's mention.
== Trivia section ==


;The Mullet
The trivia section about popular references to this show has been removed for the following reasons. IMO it violates three separate WikiP guidelines - ], ] and ]. While trivia sections are to be deprecated, or at least toned down, there is zero sourcing for any of the items that were being entered. Notability also matter as, even if some of the items could be sourced, that does not make them encyclopedic. Not every mention of this series in other media - especially comedic ones - is notable. Other editors input, including the anon IP that is missing the point of ], is welcome. ] | ] 03:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a completely irrelevant sentence and the fact that McShane wore the haistyle at times has no "influence on UK comedy or culture". The hairstyle was around long before this show and will be long after.
:I removed the section the other day for the reasons stated above by ], though I did not cite the actual WP guidelines. There was one item which was sourced, but sourced to a page about the subject itself, and thus not reliable. References to Lovejoy's hairstyle, or vague parodies of the show that appeared here or there, this is not encyclopedic content. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
:I reinstated the section as central tenant of guideline ] states "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all". Three items are sourced out of four, and is the only referencing in the whole wiki ], so arguably the only section that should remain. Parodies of the show are well known, if ] is considered encyclopaedic content, then the other referenced TV shows should also stand on the same premise. ---<font face="Verdana">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 03:51, 02 October 2010 (UTC)
:: This is all trivial, and ] sections should be avoided. ] (]) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
:::] "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all". Could you suggest how you would like to see the information better presented for each of the 4 items. ] (]) 00:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: Please read the lede of WP:TRIVIA, which states "trivia sections should be avoided." Sorry, but I don't think this information is encyclopedic. I agree with Marnette as above, it's trivial, non-notable, and not reliably sourced to anything to indicate the overall worthiness of the information. ] (]) 00:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::::: This bit? "....they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined". Would like to keep, but please suggest better presentation? ] (]) 00:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::: You don't seem to be getting what multiple editors are trying to tell you. There's no better presentation for this material, it's unencyclopedic and doesn't add anything to the encyclopedia article. ] (]) 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Significance in Popular Culture Section: I made a very minor revert on a minor article in a failed attempt to improve the article and add referencing (which there is none in the whole article). No prior talk discussion was raised on the removal of content. It seems that no contact was made by those who had removed content to contact the primary contributors - in order to improve their contribution. No attempt was made to contact Subject Matter Experts on (Association) football, the British TV shows mentioned, or the comic book - to understand the significance or otherwise, of previous contributions. The focus seems to have been for one member (MarnetteD) to make block reverts to my attempts at reinstating and improving content. When this did not work, he has enlisted you and others to continue his systematic targeting of the talk page which has focussed on false representation of subjective opinion as "fact". ] (]) 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


;Alan Moore
===Removal of content on the page ] and using threatening spam talk posts rather than discussion to resolve issues===
No source is provided that Moore was referencing this show or the film. The phrase "it would appear" shows that guess work is involved and that violates ] and ].
:MarnetteD, I think you mistakenly believe that I have added content to the page ] - I actually restored contribution of other editors and added referencing.
:You have used the article ] to justify your action of removing wikipedia content, when this article states: "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all", under the main heading.
:You haven't provided clear justification why you believe deleting 3rd parties ] and ] contribution to the page ] is the right thing to do. My personal opinion is that it is interesting content, if not the best representation of it.
: You have spammed my talk page with automated scripts, but you have used them mistakenly, and have not read the guidelines around the use of each script.
: Using a script threatening to ban a member for their first edit (restoration and improvement of previous content) could be perceived to be anti-collaborative or threatening/abusive/bullying behaviour. Recommend the wiki on ].
:RepublicanJacobite, thank you for you comments - perhaps you could also improve the section trivia without deleting content provided by other contributors.


;Scary Go Round
I would suggest the route forward on this would be to improve the article rather than deleting content unnecessarily. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
At least a source is shown but a) it is self published and b) an online comic strip - now defunct - with a limited readership is not really notable. Did any outside source comment on the storylines relationship to the TV series?


;Knowing Me...
Other than your wanting it in no proof that this improves the article has been presented. As to the other points:
Lovejoy is mentioned briefly in one sentence. In terms of the length of the skit the Darling Buds of May is mentioned far more often and is more important to the laughs that are being aimed for. Not really an "influence on UK comedy or culture".
#I am perfectly aware that you were not adding new content to the page.
#Per ] there are far more items about the fact that trivia sections do not belong in an article than the one line that you have quoted above. You have made zero attempts to follow any of the guidelines in this section to include any of the items.
#It makes absolutely no difference who entered the items in the past. The current removal meets the encyclopedic standards that wikipedia is striving to accomplish. PLEASE NOTE: this item was altered by Tiiischiii against talk page conventions so I have restored it.
#I did not remove them based on trivia guidelines alone. None of the items are sourced to outside ]. None of the items meet ] standards.
#I have read the guidelines around the use of warnings and since you would not discuss your edits on the talk page, before this edit, and you were edit warring with more than one editor the warnings on your talk page were entirely justified. Thus, no bullying has occurred.
#Edit warring and the use of more than one account to edit with also violate Misplaced Pages policies.
#If you wish to proceed to dispute resolution please feel free to do so. ] | ] 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


;Ipswich Town supporters
Other than your wanting it out no proof that removing it improves the article has been presented. As to the other points:
This one is nothing but ] and ] and it raises more questions than it answers.
#Was adding to the page by including referencing under ] to show ] and ].
#No evidence is provided that N City fans call them bin men. If they did do they still?
#Per ] "This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all", under the main heading." You have made no attempts to follow any of the guidelines in this section to improve any of the items.
#For the sake of argument lets say that they did. The term "bin men" was around for a decades before this episode aired. A ] would need to be provided that they started calling them this because of the Lovejoy episode.
#The trivia is the only referenced part of the article. The same case could be made against the main article - however improving standards means improving not deleting.
#When did they start calling them this? If they were using the term before Jan 1991 (when the episode aired) then it can't be because of the episode. Indeed if the term was used before '91 it is more likely that the writers and costumers had Clarke wear the hat because of an existing situation. But that is just an OR guess on my part.
#Standards improved
#I was not warring, and was unable to even make minor edits to the page without being reversed. 15 warning appeared on my talk page within 5 minutes of my first edit, all posted by ], therefore no chance given to even edit the discussion page. More information on ] can be found here.
#Have not used more than one account, have only tried to improve referencing on a page. During a period of an hour of gradual improvements, contributions were continually reversed. I was contributing, reversals could be seen as warring.
#The article ] contains guidelines on avoiding disputes. Would recommend reading this article. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


As it currently stands the section is just an indiscriminate list of non-notable non-encyclopedic information. As stated before your options now are ] or ]. You could also ask for input - in a neutrally worded message - from the ]. You should also be aware that there are other places on the web where you can post this kind of thing if you want to share it with others. A blog or Facebook page for instance. Please do not restore the list without pursuing the options given first. ] | ] 07:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
===Sources===
The article ] contains no in-line referencing (except in the section Parodies and Popular Culture) and could be considered ] or ]. Current focus on this talk page is centred on removal of content/ridiculing of referencing in one section rather than improving content and sources of the article as a whole. Please help improve ] by adding in-line referencing and improving article content. ]


== Barker, not picker? ==
It should be noted that the You Tube and Scarygoround links look like copyright violations and the second is truly non notable. ] | ] 18:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
PLEASE NOTE: this item was removed by Tiiischiii against talk page conventions so I have restored it.
:Not removed, just a cross posting - as these are the only references in the article - wouldn't a better use of our time be to improve content already on the page and referencing on the article as a whole?]
This edit quite clearly shows the removal of two items that I had already entered. Also you have moved this section a second time. Please do not do so a third. As to your question improving non notable info is the waste of time. ] | ] 19:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
:None notable to whom? Are you able to concede that what is "non notable" to you, maybe interesting supplemental information to other readers. The noted TV programmes have the same "importance" rating as ]. If you feel unable to contribute to the article further, then why not focus on adding content elsewhere. Where would we be if we all tried to destroy anything we had a negative personal opinion about? ]


::It is a trivia list and furthermore it is mainly ] or ] using primary sources. ManetteD's assessment that this is not even notable is correct in my opinion. --] (]) 21:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC) I always thought Tinker was Lovejoy's barker. Never heard of 'picker'. ] (]) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing this to our attention. On one hand you are quite right the term picker is not used in the TV series (which I have rewatched in the last year) or in the books (that I can remember though its been more than a few years since I read them. On the other hand I am not sure that ] is the right term either - at least as described in the wikiarticle for the term. I am pretty sure that Lovejoy's monologues use some term for him so if someone can check with the books or DVDs please change it with my thanks (sorry my schedule is a bit busy at the moment or I would do it) in the meantime we might remove that section until better info is available. I will leave it up to you Cormullion. ] | ] 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
::: Could you provide examples on each of the four points in the Parodies and Popular Culture section of why you believe them to be ] or ] and make recommendations on how you would like to see them improved. ]
::::I agree with ] and ], this information is trivial, nonnotable, synthesis, and original research. There is nothing worth saving or improving there. Let's wrap this up and move on to actually important issues. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::Rather than trying to railroad with unsubstantiated comment, could you provide examples for each of the four points. ] (]) 00:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::No, you need to prove that they are notable, relevant, and non-trivial, which you have, thus far, failed to do. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 00:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::OK, then could you, as they are subjective terms, define succinctly what you would be looking for in notable, relevant, and non-trivial. My thoughts are:
:::::::#Notable: One entry is about how the show influenced a change in language usage in the region the show is based (East Anglia, UK), two entries are about how the show influenced British comedy, one entry I know little about but is a further influence.
:::::::#Relevant: All entries are about Lovejoy and it's influence.
:::::::#Non Trivial: Ian McShane broke his toe-nail in the third series. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:: the OED gives 'barker' as 'antique shop tout' as well as 'fairground shout-y person', which is close enough to what I think Tinker probably does. Anyway, I'll make the edit. ] (]) 09:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Oh my gosh, he broke his toe nail?! You're right, that's not at all trivial! ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 15:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks for doing the extra research. Barker is used in the series too as I pulled the first season off the shelf last night and heard it but didn't get back here to edit before heading to sleep. I noted your edit summary about the TV show and, while you are right for the most part, I do enjoy that first season. Many of the stories come from the books and the Lovejoy v Gimbert byplay is fun and I also enjoyed seeing Venice in the season ending two parter. Thanks again and cheers. ] | ] 12:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
::::::::: I was trying to establish criteria? You suggest I need to prove against subjective criteria that you will not clarify ] (]) 17:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


::::::::::Tiiischiii, please accept that consensus is against you and move on. --] (]) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC) :::: The casting was good, but I think they lost the spirit of the books and I couldn't enjoy it... One day perhaps I'll do some work on the novels' wikipedia page ] (]) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
==File:Lovejoy-cast.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion==
<!--TSTAMP:{{{4}}}-->
{|
|-
| ]
| <!--IMAGES-->
An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: ''Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011''
<!--/IMAGES-->
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review ] before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is ] then you may need to provide a ]
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try ]


''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 10:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
== Significance in Popular Culture ==
|}


== Sources ==
Reordering by MarnetteD: The following ] shows masked reordering undertaken by ], so therefore I have (re-)separated this section and renamed the header.


* - ] ] 23:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Introduction: This areas addresses the previous removal of culturally significant material from ] without prior discussion. Please keep discussions on Trivia to the trivia section (or in private talk). Please keep discussion on "Significance in Popular Culture" to this section.
== "Loving Joy" listed at ] ==

]
Terms of reference: This section is for the constructive discussion of the inclusion of Significance in Popular Culture section.
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you wish to do so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

=== Proposal ===
#To re-include "Parodies and Appearances in Popular Culture" under new heading and establish notability, relevancy, and "non-triviality".
#To include further information on Lovejoy's Significance in Popular Culture, that also meets this criterion.

Clarification of Criterion (notability, relevancy, and "non-triviality"): Criteria is subjective in nature, and no single measure exists. Sections below highlight cases for and cases against.

=== Cases For ===
Current proposed content:
#Notable: One proposed entry is about how the show influenced a change in language usage in the region the show is based (East Anglia, UK), two entries are about how the show influenced British comedy, one entry is about a comic book parody.
#Relevant: All entries are about Lovejoy and it's influence.
#Non Trivial: e.g. NOT Ian McShane broke his toe-nail in the third series.

=== Cases Against ===
Under proposal, inclusion must meet objective of notability, relevancy, and "non-triviality". Therefore explanation of objection under each point for each proposed item (using specific examples, and plain-English explanations):
# <stub can be deleted> Go here
# <stub can be deleted> and here, etc.

==== Trivial Content ====
Above discussion is centered on the addition of this material , which the consensus on this page among editors doesn't belong here as ], non-encyclopedic, not ], and with any notability only coming through ], which isn't allowed. While I can appreciate ] endeavor to get the material included, the fact remains that a long, involved discussion isn't really necessary when consensus is clear against material in violation of multiple policies. ] (]) 01:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
::Exclusionists are a nuisance -I would like to have read about parodies of Lovejoy in the Article. What is left is a stripped down eunuch of an article. Could it be argued that all modern tv produce is trivia ? or equally that people are just looking up stuff for table quizzes sometimes --—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

== References and Sources (Whole Article) ==

The article ] contains no inline referencing and could be considered ] or ]. Please help improve ] by adding in-line referencing and improving article content. ]

Unclear from the article whether parts should be removed due to lack of verifiability ]

== Answer to inaccurate and untrue accusations ==

For the record the accusation that I reordered anything made in the "Significance in Popular Culture" section above is incorrect. I did not reorder anything I simply created a subsection of an already ongoing discussion, which is done quite often for clarity. After that my comments were altered (including blanking) here , here and here . There have also been several instances of inserting comments into existing text making things more difficult to follow. Reodering and renaming of sections of which this is just one example has made any attempts to follow the conversation in a chronological manner almost impossible. IMO the accusation that I reordered anything should be struck through and an apology should be issued. ] | ] 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
: I'll second this, I can't see anywhere where MarnetteD has removed anyone else's comments. ] (]) 17:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::Your good reputation precedes you; don't worry about it - someone else in is the wrong here. <b>]</b> ] 17:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
::I concur, and request that this scurrilous accusation be withdrawn. ---<font face="Georgia">''']'''<sub>'']''</sub></font> 17:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

:MarnetteD - As this seems to be addressed to me. Firstly the blanking was a genuine mistake, you choose not to believe this and that is your freedom of choice. There is nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, for which I am sorry. I am unaware of the protocol around moving items, I have to admit after you misdirected my first contribution in this talk page, I thought it was ok to move text. Please send a link to the guidelines around editing talk pages where it outlines sub-headings and prohibits other text moves.

:All - I am conscious that the "will you help improve the article?", "no we won't", "will you respect other editors contributions?", "no we won't" cycle under trivia doesn't put anyone in the best light. I am happy for anyone to delete my posts in the Trivia section only, as it hasn't had the desired outcome of engendering conversation about the Significance of Lovejoy in Popular Culture. ] (]) 20:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
:: I agree that the Parodies section is interesting,notable and useful and should be added back to the article--—&nbsp;]&nbsp;<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 05:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

== Changes from Page to Screen ==

===Proposal===
To remove unless improved, 1 month from this revision on 4 November 2010.

=== Cases For ===
Not ], and with any notability only coming through ], which isn't allowed.

=== Cases Against ===
<Stub>

== Barker, not picker? ==

I always thought Tinker was Lovejoy's barker. Never heard of 'picker'. ] (]) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing this to our attention. On one hand you are quite right the term picker is not used in the TV series (which I have reseen in the last year) or in the books (that I can remember though its been more than a few years since I read them. On the other hand I am not sure that ] is the right term either - at least as described in the wikiarticle for the term. I am pretty sure that Lovejoy's monologues use some term for him so if someone can check with the books or DVDs please change it with my thanks (sorry my shcedule is a bit busy at the moment or I would do it) in the meantime we might remove that section until better info is available. I will leave it up to you Cormullion. ] | ] 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:58, 18 February 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lovejoy article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconTelevision: British Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Misplaced Pages 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British television task force.
WikiProject iconBBC Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

UK comedy and culture

http://mindlessones.com/2011/07/23/the-league-of-extraordinary-gentlemen-century-1969-the-annocommentations/ If you go to the above site, and search in page for "Lovejoy" you'll see what I mean. It is intentional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShadowyCabal (talk • contribs) 07:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, suggest reinstating previous content removal (vandalism?) under heading "Continued influence in UK comedy and culture" 94.0.82.246 (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Further clarification of reasoning, do not understand the previous talk discussion, however Lovejoy did have an enduring influence on UK 'alternative' comedy and culture. Personal opinion granted, but substantiated by the previous verified content. Not my contribution, and possible merit in rewrite away from bulleted format, but links to other UK comedy should be noted, and is longstanding content in this article. Anyone have further thoughts on the subject's influence? 94.0.82.246 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
It isn't this show that has to have influence it is the trivia that requires it. Be aware that per WP:LONGTIME just because an item was here for any length of time is not a reason for inclusion. MarnetteD | Talk 02:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Just because the item was here for a long time is not a reason for exclusion. The section does not meet the criteria for trivia. Please present a credible, substantiated case for the removal of content. Also please be aware that per WP:TRIVIA, A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information. Guidelines do not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The WP:BURDEN is on you to justify their inclusion and you have not done so. Also these require secondary sources to establish broad cultural significance and none of them come anywhere close to that. No where is there WP guideline that poorly presented info is a good things. The current consensus is that this section does not belong in this article and you have not presented a single argument that has changed that to this point. MarnetteD | Talk 23:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with WP:BURDEN and not trying to establish broad cultural significance, rather agree with previous citated content in terms of influence in British/UK comedy. Central tennant being notability durived from the citation of numerous sources. This is the only section in the article that is remotely citated, however could you refer to WP:CON and suggest further changes to establish new consensus. No consensus reached on this being poorly presented info, will reinstate if no further suggestions received 94.0.82.246 (talk) 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is based on the previous conversation in the archives and the fact that I am not the editor that removed the section last month. Poorly presented info has no place in the encyclopedia anywhere and the is no section of the MoS that supports its reinstatement. You are still missing the point that it isn't the show Lovejoy that needs "secondary sources to establish broad cultural significance" it is the items in the trivia section that require it. Also you should not refactor comments or section headers on a talk page so there seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE as well as SPA problems. Until consensus has changed you should not restore the section or you will be subject to WP:3RR MarnetteD | Talk 00:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Understand your point on broad cultural significance, but don't believe this section was trying to establish this and edit made no reference to this. Could you substantiate "poorly presented", and "trivia" under "What were you thinking?" WP:WWYT and WP:ZEAL. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Establishing cultural significance is what the section has to do to be included in the article. You are the one who has stated that the section is poorly presented so you will have to answer your own question. I have explained myself quite clearly so there is no response to give to your last sentence. Unless you can comment on content there is little else to repond to. MarnetteD | Talk 00:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back, references to Lovejoy in UK comedy does not have to have broad cultural significance to merit inclusion as the section does not seek to establish this. The main article does not establish significance of Lovejoy in any context. The removed content is with citation, and establishes prevalence of Lovejoy references in other UK comedy. Unless you can evidence reasons why it does not do this I will lose good will, being opposed by a unsubstantiated respresentation of personal opinion as fact. I think you have more to contribute so would like you to substantiate "poorly presented", and "trivia" again under "What were you thinking?" WP:WWYT and WP:ZEAL. If you don't want to discuss I can only revert for a second time. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes the section does need to establish significance per the guidelines for trivia pop culture sections. You are ignoring the fact that you are the one who stated that the section is poorly presented. You have presented no proof for WWYT or ZEAL. As an SPA you need to do so. You have provided zero evidence that the current consensus should be overturned. Your choices now are WP:RFCC or WP:DR. Please do not violate WP:3RR again while those other options still exist. MarnetteD | Talk 02:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I have not violated WP:3RR I have edited, reverted, reverted well beyond a 24HR period. There is only me and you and no consensus gained. WP: WWYT is just a request, familiarity is the key here. Happy to go for external, if you aren't interested. Be careful you don't violate WP:3RR while I gain opinion. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The consensus for exclusion already exists per previous conversations. You may not reinstate it until you have explored the other options and as to ZEAL as a SPA that would seem to apply to you. You may want to see WP:BOOMERANG MarnetteD | Talk 02:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:ZEAL I haven't deleted, I have added. WP:SPA I have made no mention. WP:BOOMERANG I have not reported anything, so not sure what you mean. All I have tried to do is solicit your opinion under WP:WWYT. Are you trolling me? I am not sure why you refuse to discuss. 94.0.82.246 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
No trolling has occurred and you continue to restore against the current consensus. I have discussed time and time again and you have ignored it all. Until you have gained a change of consensus or obtained an outside opinion you should not be reverting. MarnetteD | Talk 04:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I have made seven requests to understand your position under guidance WP:WWYT. To explain what I am thinking again, I do not believe inclusion of a section on influence of Lovejoy on other British/UK comedy is WP:TRIV. You have requested reference to establish broad cultural appeal, however inline references already achieve this not about lovejoy, but for comedians such as Vic Reeves, Bob Mortimer and the League of Gentlemen. However broad cultural appeal of British comedy is not content for article Lovejoy, however it's influences are. If you would like to understand more please read the related wiki articles on these subjects e.g. League of Gentlemen etc. You seem to state WP:TRIV, as a defence of your personal subjective opinion of 'trivial', and I believe these are different things. If these are not your thoughts, please explain. Consensus has been achieved amongst the ten separate editors that have contributed content and citations, if you would like to change consensus it would help if you provide a list of objections and what you believe would make this content better, so a new consensus can be achieved under WP:CON. In the meantime we will go for WP:RFCC 94.0.82.246 (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The items you readded, without gaining a new consensus BTW, contain no new evidence of notability. You said that you would proceed to RFCC but obviously chose not to. That is still your next step. MarnetteD | Talk 03:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI These edits , , , and this violate WP:CANVASS and may hurt your case when you file your RFCC. The dearth of responses (with the exception of the WP:NPA violation) should go some way to pointing out the notability problems. MarnetteD | Talk 03:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Section break for convenience

The section is anything but a "A selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme" so lets break down the problems.

Harry Enfield, Vic Reeves mentions

These shows parodies 100's if not 1000's of shows/commercials/films etc. Were the Lovejoy skits any more notable than any of the others that they did? Did any critics comment on them at the time. Are they still discussed or written about today - as either particularly well done bits in the shows or in relation to Lovejoy? If not then they are just indiscriminate information. BTW the source used for Enfield is a dead link and no source is provided at all for either Reeve's mention.

The Mullet

This is a completely irrelevant sentence and the fact that McShane wore the haistyle at times has no "influence on UK comedy or culture". The hairstyle was around long before this show and will be long after.

Alan Moore

No source is provided that Moore was referencing this show or the film. The phrase "it would appear" shows that guess work is involved and that violates WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS.

Scary Go Round

At least a source is shown but a) it is self published and b) an online comic strip - now defunct - with a limited readership is not really notable. Did any outside source comment on the storylines relationship to the TV series?

Knowing Me...

Lovejoy is mentioned briefly in one sentence. In terms of the length of the skit the Darling Buds of May is mentioned far more often and is more important to the laughs that are being aimed for. Not really an "influence on UK comedy or culture".

Ipswich Town supporters

This one is nothing but WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS and it raises more questions than it answers.

  1. No evidence is provided that N City fans call them bin men. If they did do they still?
  2. For the sake of argument lets say that they did. The term "bin men" was around for a decades before this episode aired. A WP:RS would need to be provided that they started calling them this because of the Lovejoy episode.
  3. When did they start calling them this? If they were using the term before Jan 1991 (when the episode aired) then it can't be because of the episode. Indeed if the term was used before '91 it is more likely that the writers and costumers had Clarke wear the hat because of an existing situation. But that is just an OR guess on my part.

As it currently stands the section is just an indiscriminate list of non-notable non-encyclopedic information. As stated before your options now are WP:RFCC or WP:DR. You could also ask for input - in a neutrally worded message - from the Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Television. You should also be aware that there are other places on the web where you can post this kind of thing if you want to share it with others. A blog or Facebook page for instance. Please do not restore the list without pursuing the options given first. MarnetteD | Talk 07:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Barker, not picker?

I always thought Tinker was Lovejoy's barker. Never heard of 'picker'. Cormullion (talk) 21:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. On one hand you are quite right the term picker is not used in the TV series (which I have rewatched in the last year) or in the books (that I can remember though its been more than a few years since I read them. On the other hand I am not sure that Barker (occupation) is the right term either - at least as described in the wikiarticle for the term. I am pretty sure that Lovejoy's monologues use some term for him so if someone can check with the books or DVDs please change it with my thanks (sorry my schedule is a bit busy at the moment or I would do it) in the meantime we might remove that section until better info is available. I will leave it up to you Cormullion. MarnetteD | Talk 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
the OED gives 'barker' as 'antique shop tout' as well as 'fairground shout-y person', which is close enough to what I think Tinker probably does. Anyway, I'll make the edit. Cormullion (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for doing the extra research. Barker is used in the series too as I pulled the first season off the shelf last night and heard it but didn't get back here to edit before heading to sleep. I noted your edit summary about the TV show and, while you are right for the most part, I do enjoy that first season. Many of the stories come from the books and the Lovejoy v Gimbert byplay is fun and I also enjoyed seeing Venice in the season ending two parter. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 12:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The casting was good, but I think they lost the spirit of the books and I couldn't enjoy it... One day perhaps I'll do some work on the novels' wikipedia page Cormullion (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Lovejoy-cast.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lovejoy-cast.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Misplaced Pages files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

"Loving Joy" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Loving Joy. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill 22:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories: