Talk:List of Downton Abbey characters

Relevance

Is such a huge page really relevant or necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.84.141 (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Information on the characters in a show that enjoys both high viewers and an incredibly strong critical focus is relevant to have. Regarding the size (and quality) of the article it does need a lot of work in regards to trimming some character sections for relevancy and also structuring it more from a real world perspective (disussing the approach of actors and writers and how the characters have been received in the media). Eshlare (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

So, I'm going to cleanup the page. Cut out excess plot, insert important details that were left out. I was going to simplify the headings because they seem to be a bit ridiculous. Like "Lady Sybil Crawley, later Lady Sybil Branson", can't we just stick with "Sybil Crawley" or "Sybil Branson" (and then anchor the other?). And it isn't necessary to have Lady in the heading. I think titles should be left out of the headings, and then mentioned in the first sentence. That's probably the most controversial thing I'm going to do.... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The Lady, later... business is there to avoid in-universe form. The characters have to be presented so readers will be familiar with them at any point in their history. We discussed this at some length on the main article page, and this is the correct form for these names. I do agree that the descriptions are way overloaded with plot, however. --Drmargi (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Merp. Didn't even look at the main page. So I'll just leave it as is and add hidden anchors to make wikilinking easier. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree (double negative alert!) that it's cumbersome, but it's also the best of a bad group of options. It took a while to find a decent compromise (I still argue that Sybil should not have the title attached to her married name), but it works. --Drmargi (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So, I'm working on this on one of my subpages (doing that makes me more comfortable). Shortening up the supporting and more minor characters isn't going so well (I keep adding about two hundred to five hundred characters without refs), but I don't think that'll happen with the main guys. Anyways, any particular reason the characters are ordered like they are? I'm not seeing an obvious pattern. I thought ordering them by credited appearance in the opening for the main actors and order of appearance for everyone else. (Of course, unless that's how they're already ordered. I don't know the opening credits very well...) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignore that last bit. The way the opening credits are ordered would make absolutely no sense. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Would it be a problem to remove the née's from the opening line for those women who weren't married when the series began? For example, remove it from Daisy's. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Forget it, I'll leave it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it inappropriate to place Martha Levinson, Cora's mother, under Crawley family? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 03:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Misc

Edith's middle name: The printed programs used for the scene of Edith's nuptials in series 3 show Edith's middle name as Josephine. There are close-ups of these props in a bonus featurette on the dvd, which can be seen at this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1606375/board/nest/205140607?p=6&d=210493674#210493674 Netherfield (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an entry for Lady Rose MacClare? She's referenced in some of the other text, but could use an entry of her own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefdian (talk • contribs) 03:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe Rose is Edith's first cousin. She is the daughter of Violet's niece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.182.39 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

References

It seems like there need to be more references on this page and I agree on that. The series itself is often enough source I think, but it would be great if someone could write references to when it happened or when it was said, which episode, year and maybe even minute in the episode. Right now the first reference just say that Robert said something, I'd like to know when he said that (and not just the year). Otherwise I think it's a good page with lots of information, we just have to update it when new episodes are coming. :) Astridx (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT!

Each character profile should be broken into series (seasons). Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia in format, but it is also a practical reference. I came here only to catch up on who's who, and I was very disappointed to realize that some of the exposition I had been reading included the third season. (I'm writing this as the start of the third series has just been aired in the United States.)

Could also use a photo of each character or actor if available. Eplater (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

you could always try the Encyclopedia Britannica Hé Hé Hé

Question about Sir Anthony Strallan

How do we know he is indeed a baronet and not just a knight ? Has this ever been mentioned explicitly on the show ? 161.24.19.112 (talk) 17:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's implicit onscreen rather than explicit (though I suspect it's covered in some of the companion books and other material) but other than age & injury he's considered a reasonably traditional husband for an Earl's daughter and so pesumably not somebody who has had his own title conferred. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

5th or 6th Earl?

I thought Robert was the 6th Earl - and what little we've been told of the family financial history suggests the 5th Earl was Robert's father who was bailed out by Cora's money rather than the 4th who only saved things by dying - when was this changed or is the source unreliable? Timrollpickering (talk) 23:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the 5th Earl information is just taken from a picture of Sybil's gravestone. However, that prop has only been seen in an unofficial paparazzi picture and hasn't yet been seen in the show. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I'm 99% sure we didn't see Sybil's grave when we saw Matthew's) Therefore I don't personally think it can be taken as canon information until it's seen in the show. They could have made the prop and then deliberately not shown it clearly because it shows the wrong info. There is a new behind the scenes book out at the moment - does anyone know if that has information on this subject? --88.104.126.188 (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

7th Earl

The latest behind the scenes book doesn't have any reference to the number of earls there have been. However, the "Downton Abbey:A new era" book refers to Robert as the seventh earl of Grantham. Shouldn't this official book be given more weight than a paparazzi pic of a prop that hasn't appeared in the show? Official material lists him as the seventh earl and he should be called such on this page. Bluebellanon (talk) 09:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Matthew indicates in series 3 that his great-grandfather was a younger son of the 3rd Earl and Violet indicates in the first episode that the new heir is Robert's 3rd cousin once removed. If you combine these details, he has to be the 7th Earl

Marigold's Surname

Should her surname be listed as Gregson, or Drewe? What source or evidence is their to give her the surname Gregson? Labelleflamme (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Evelyn Napier in series 5?

Isn't that an error? What evidence is there that napier will appear in series 5? Labelleflamme (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Green's death

It is explicitly said (in episode 8 of season 4) that Mr Green died in Piccadilly - not Picadilly Circus, as this article states (with a spelling mistake). I am unaware how to change this, since it involves changing the link (characters in blue).

Jfp2006 Jfp2006 (talk) 06:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed this, the link can be edited in the same way as the rest of the article by just changing the words in the square bracket. Dabbler (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Miss Denker

Whilst she's fairly new and not yet appeared that many episodes, she has been the major focus of at least two (admittedly not main) storylines (the chicken soup and the gambling club) Adagio67 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"In-universe" writing

The page needs a major rewrite to bring it to encyclopedic standards. At the moment it is written "in universe", meaning it is written as if the characters were real, with birth information etc., that is simply part of the "plot". This must be taken care of. This is not a fan site and the article is in danger of deletion unless it conforms to Wikipedia standards. This does not mean we have to lose a large chunk of the content, but it does mean that the writing must reflect the real world aspects of this as a production and these people as characters portrayed by actors and have no historic counterpart and are completely fictitious.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Real world:

Real-world perspective

Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded. It necessitates the use of both primary and secondary information.

Exemplary aspects of real-world perspective include:

• Careful differentiation between the work of fiction itself and aspects of its production process and publication, such as the impact a work of fiction has had in the real world (see also below)
• Careful differentiation between narrated time and fictional chronology on the one hand, and narrative time and actual chronology of real-world events on the other (of particular relevance to all film and TV-related topics)
• The presentation of fictional material
  • particularly for film and TV-related topics, this may include cinematographical aspects
  • for literature, this may include writing style and literary technique
• Description of fictional characters, places and devices as objects of the narrative
• Making (referenced!) mention of the author's intention

Real-world perspective is not an optional quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles. See below for a list of exemplary articles which employ a consistent real-world perspective.

The problem with in-universe perspective

An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info.

Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading, inviting unverifiable original research. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to what we do not want Wikipedia to be or become.

Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include:

• Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavour
• A plot synopsis written like a historical account
• Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography, placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation. For example, instead of writing: "Gandalf was a powerful wizard" write: "Gandalf is characterised, described, or cast by Tolkien as a powerful wizard".
• Description of fictional places written like a geographical account; the same principles apply as for fictional characters. For example (per WP:CYF), instead of writing: "Trillian is Arthur Dent's girlfriend. She was taken away from Earth by Zaphod when he met her at a party. She meets Dent while travelling with Zaphod", write: "Trillian is a fictional character from Douglas Adams' radio, book and now film series The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In the first book, Trillian is introduced to the main character Arthur Dent on a spaceship. In her backstory, she was taken away from Earth when the space alien Zaphod Beeblebrox met her at a party."
• Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense
• Attempting to reconcile contradictions or bridge gaps in the narrative, rather than simply reporting them as such
• Giving equal weight to a fictional topic's appearances in major works, and in obscure spin-off material
• Placing spiritual successors in the same continuity as the works that inspired them
• Using in-jokes and references which require knowledge of the plot or characters of the work, its prequels or sequels
• Using infoboxes intended for real-world topics
• Referring to the fictional events or dates which occur in the story, rather than the fictional works themselves. For example, instead of writing: "It is the year 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half of the galaxy", write: "This story is set in the year 34,500 AD, when the Trantorian Empire encompasses roughly half of the galaxy", or similar.
• Ordering works by their fictional chronology, rather than the actual order they were published. For example, although Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was the fourth film released in the franchise, the story is a prequel that represents the beginning of the Star Wars narrative. As such it should be ordered as the fourth work in the series, not the first. It is acceptable to include both the fictional timeline and the real world timeline, providing that the distinction is not ambiguous; the real world time line should take precedence.

These restrictions should and do hold for serious satire such as Gulliver's Travels or Candide (and many works for the stage) where the fictional elements are designed to camouflage the serious political or social criticism within the work. In such cases, it is legitimate to freely examine the fictional elements and the design of the storyline in order to attempt to decipher the author's original intent. The same exemptions might apply to other special forms of literature where the fiction/non-fiction categorization is disputed, such as the possibly historical elements of religious scripture.

See also the sections on fair use, accuracy and appropriate weight, and templates.

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Some references

A long time ago, I collected a bunch of references in my userspace for an overhaul of the article. At this point, I'm just going to leave them here in case anyone else finds use out of them. I haven't gone through them at this time, so I'm unsure what's actually helpful and what's broken and so on.

• About the cricket match
• Mary's tiara
• Ref for medical advisor
• Time Magazine video
• Edwardian Promenade video of the Homes & Garden feature
• Digital Spy video with the cast
• PBS with the cast on who they would like to play
• Helen James Production video
• Lady Magazine countdown to Downton series 3
• Findlay and Leech with Radio Times on series two and behind the scenes
• Lesley Nicols on the Alan Titchmarsh Show
• Gay kiss censored in Greece
• Review
• Leech with Mr Porter
• Leech with Daily Mail
• Leech with Whats on TV
• Leech with The Scotsman
• Stevens with Whats on TV
• Dan Stevens with Daily Mail on Matthew
• Dan Stevens with the Daily Mail
• AP video on series 3 (Cora) and her new role
• Fellowes ith the LA Times Mag
• Michelle with the LA TImes Mag
• Guardian on Sybil's death
• Digital Spy on death
• The Arts Desk on death

And that's what I've got. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Where is Baxter?

One looks in vain for a section on lady's maid Baxter. Is there an editor here who will take on the task of remedying this peculiar omission? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - thanks to the IP editor who added the new section. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

For whom exactly was Siobbhan Finneran supposedly a Stand-in??

This was added to the color chart by an IP in June 2014.Mirawithani (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)