Talk:Lovejoy

Vandalism

What is this?: "John Lovejoy, as his name actually confirms, featured on an episode of The Smell Of Reeves And Mortimer. He discusses how he came to become the foremost authority on antiques in East Anglia. Apparently born to a native American family, he emigrated to England on his BMX bike after an unfortunate pile up of Micro Machines due to an error when attempting to steal apples. After the rains finished, he and his father surveyed the East Anglian countryside, realising that all the antiques in the region belonged to them." It doesn't seem to make much sense.71.63.15.156 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was vandalism. I've removed it now. Well spotted. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Five Year Hiatus

At least part of the reason for the time gap before the shows return was Ian McShane's being given a recurring role in the American primetime soap opera Dallas. I don't have an exact source that I can give (though I remember reading it in TV Guide at the time) so I will only note it here for anyone that is interested.User:MarnetteD | Talk 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there's more to it that, but unfortunately I don't remember the details, just an interview with McShane wherein he stated that "he wanted to do a second series, the TV company wanted to do a second series, but due to a misunderstanding somewhere down the line, it just didn't happen".

71.223.190.5 01:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm?

In the first part of Highland Fling the dotty Lady of the Manor refers to Lovejoy as Malcolm. However, earlier in the episode the Lady comments that Lovejoy reminds her of Malcolm. Lovejoy asks who Malcolm is and is told that he is a local, toothless poacher. Therefore the assertion that Lovejoy's first name is Malcolm is not tenable.

Dazbo

194.73.102.252 10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Their are references to the name Malcolm through out all 6 series, that is just one example Krawhitham 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

talking to the audience

I have been recently rewatching this show and felt the "asides" (as the plot device is called), where Lovejoy talks briefly to the camera (audience) to illuminate a paticular point of the story should be mentoined somewhere in the description of this seriies. The aside is used in almost (if not all) all episodes. I think that this is a signifigant enough part of the show to be mentioned. 24.17.152.137 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

He actually didn't do this in the first series, it was introduced when the programme returned after that long break. --88.111.189.102 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

He does in fact do this in the first season. See S1E1 at about 4:21, S1E2 at about 5:20 (et al.) for examples

As noted by the unsigned edit above and in my edit summary of today he does it fairly quickly after the opening credits of the first episode of the first season and in almost each of the episodes that follow. MarnetteD | Talk 19:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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).

Fair use rationale for Image:Lovejoy-box.png

Image:Lovejoy-box.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

U.S. VHS Release

As the rest of the opening paragraph is solely about the books, I've moved this fact into the Television section. Rojomoke 18:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Split articles

It might be justified to create seperate articles, one for the books and one for the tv show. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now split the article into two with the televisions series at Lovejoy and the novels now at Lovejoy (books).Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'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". Two items are sourced out of three, 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)

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 C
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 Wikipedia 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 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.