This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 94.0.82.246 (talk) at 02:56, 12 May 2012 (→UK comedy and culture). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:56, 12 May 2012 by 94.0.82.246 (talk) (→UK comedy and culture)(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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
|
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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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 thesection 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
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 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)
- 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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC) |
