Misplaced Pages

Talk:Lovejoy

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MarnetteD (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 18 October 2011 (→Barker, not picker?: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:50, 18 October 2011 by MarnetteD (talk | contribs) (→Barker, not picker?: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconTelevision 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.

Template:WikiProject British TV shows

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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:

New note

opening credits if anyone cares http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQP7NuYkuwE

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).

Trivia section

The trivia section about popular references to this show has been removed for the following reasons. IMO it violates three separate WikiP guidelines - WP:TRIVIA, WP:RS and WP:NOTABILITY. 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 WP:BRD, is welcome. MarnetteD | Talk 03:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section the other day for the reasons stated above by MarnetteD, 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I reinstated the section as central tenant of guideline WP:TRIVIA 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 Lovejoy, so arguably the only section that should remain. Parodies of the show are well known, if Lovejoy is considered encyclopaedic content, then the other referenced TV shows should also stand on the same premise. ---Tiiischiii 03:51, 02 October 2010 (UTC)
This is all trivial, and trivia sections should be avoided. Dayewalker (talk) 23:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:TRIVIA "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. Tiiischiii (talk) 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. Dayewalker (talk) 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? Tiiischiii (talk) 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. Dayewalker (talk) 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". Tiiischiii (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content on the page Lovejoy and using threatening spam talk posts rather than discussion to resolve issues

MarnetteD, I think you mistakenly believe that I have added content to the page Lovejoy - I actually restored contribution of other editors and added referencing.
You have used the article WP:Trivia 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 User:Toyokuni3 and User:Timrollpickering contribution to the page Lovejoy 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 dispute resolution.
RepublicanJacobite, thank you for you comments - perhaps you could also improve the section trivia without deleting content provided by other contributors.

I would suggest the route forward on this would be to improve the article rather than deleting content unnecessarily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiischiii (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than your wanting it in no proof that this improves the article has been presented. As to the other points:

  1. I am perfectly aware that you were not adding new content to the page.
  2. Per WP:TRIVIA 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.
  3. 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.
  4. I did not remove them based on trivia guidelines alone. None of the items are sourced to outside reliable sources. None of the items meet WP:NOTABILITY standards.
  5. 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.
  6. Edit warring and the use of more than one account to edit with also violate Misplaced Pages policies.
  7. If you wish to proceed to dispute resolution please feel free to do so. MarnetteD | Talk 18:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Other than your wanting it out no proof that removing it improves the article has been presented. As to the other points:

  1. Was adding to the page by including referencing under WP:TRIVIA to show WP:NOTABILITY and reliable sources.
  2. Per WP:TRIVIA "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.
  3. 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.
  4. Standards improved
  5. 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 MarnetteD, therefore no chance given to even edit the discussion page. More information on bullying can be found here.
  6. 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.
  7. The article dispute resolution contains guidelines on avoiding disputes. Would recommend reading this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiischiii (talk • contribs) 20:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources

The article Lovejoy contains no in-line referencing (except in the section Parodies and Popular Culture) and could be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. 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 Lovejoy by adding in-line referencing and improving article content. Tiiischiii

It should be noted that the You Tube and Scarygoround links look like copyright violations and the second is truly non notable. MarnetteD | Talk 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?Tiiischiii

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. MarnetteD | Talk 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 Lovejoy. 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? Tiiischiii
It is a trivia list and furthermore it is mainly WP:OR or WP:SYNTH using primary sources. ManetteD's assessment that this is not even notable is correct in my opinion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:59, 2 October 2010 (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 WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and make recommendations on how you would like to see them improved. Tiiischiii
I agree with MarnetteD and Saddhiyama, 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Rather than trying to railroad with unsubstantiated comment, could you provide examples for each of the four points. Tiiischiii (talk) 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. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 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:
  1. 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.
  2. Relevant: All entries are about Lovejoy and it's influence.
  3. Non Trivial: Ian McShane broke his toe-nail in the third series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiiischiii (talk • contribs) 12:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh my gosh, he broke his toe nail?! You're right, that's not at all trivial! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was trying to establish criteria? You suggest I need to prove against subjective criteria that you will not clarify Tiiischiii (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Tiiischiii, please accept that consensus is against you and move on. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Significance in Popular Culture

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

Introduction: This areas addresses the previous removal of culturally significant material from Lovejoy 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.

Terms of reference: This section is for the constructive discussion of the inclusion of Significance in Popular Culture section.

Proposal

  1. To re-include "Parodies and Appearances in Popular Culture" under new heading and establish notability, relevancy, and "non-triviality".
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Relevant: All entries are about Lovejoy and it's influence.
  3. 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):

  1. <stub can be deleted> Go here
  2. <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 trivial, non-encyclopedic, not reliably sourced, and with any notability only coming through synthesis and original research, which isn't allowed. While I can appreciate Tiiischiii's 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. Dayewalker (talk) 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 --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 05:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

References and Sources (Whole Article)

The article Lovejoy contains no inline referencing and could be considered WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Please help improve Lovejoy by adding in-line referencing and improving article content. Tiiischiii

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

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. MarnetteD | Talk 17:24, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll second this, I can't see anywhere where MarnetteD has removed anyone else's comments. Dayewalker (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Your good reputation precedes you; don't worry about it - someone else in is the wrong here. Radiopathy •talk• 17:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I concur, and request that this scurrilous accusation be withdrawn. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 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. Tiiischiii (talk) 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--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht /Stalk 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 reliably sourced, and with any notability only coming through synthesis and original research, which isn't allowed.

Cases Against

<Stub>

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 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 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 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. MarnetteD | Talk 21:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Categories: