This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 11:15, 19 October 2011 (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Lovejoy/Archive 2.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:15, 19 October 2011 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 90d) to Talk:Lovejoy/Archive 2.)(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. |
|
| 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.
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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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).
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)
- 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)