Talk:Downton Abbey: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:12, 9 March 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Downton Abbey article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

This article 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.

Television B‑class High‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia 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 articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-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.

Yorkshire B‑class Mid‑importance

	Yorkshire portal Downton Abbey is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Bampton standing in for Downtown?

What we have already seems too wordy to me. Isn't it more concise and correct to say Bampton stands in for the town of Downtown? Sorry, I didn't know someone had already made this comment. 86.174.44.140 (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of that paragraph seemed a little convoluted to me, so I have made it easier to read by splitting it into two sentences. Other than that, this paragraph does seem to include useful information and I don't see anything that should actually be removed. – Wdchk (talk) 13:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas specials

Why do they set most of the Christmas specials during the summer? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.254.63.93 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Will be that Was

Reading this article is jarring since in the same paragraph a sentence written before season 4 aired says "will be" while a later sentence added after season 4 aired says "was". Fix? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant quote (Anna's Rape)

We have Joanna quoted as saying that Anna and Bates face problems and later we refer to warnings about the rape. Do we need this coy quote? Or should we just say Anna was raped in this part of the text? Slightnostalgia (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication

Large amounts of cast information is duplicated unnecessarily across two sets of tables. These should be merged. 86.190.237.83 (talk) 00:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Napier in series 5?

Is there any evidence or source to support the claim that Brendan Patricks as Evelyn Napier will appear in series 5? Labelleflamme (talk) 15:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might I make a proposal

The article has become far to long and complicated making its encyclopedic value diminished, its load time lengthy and there is far too much in one article for the average reader. I am going to go through the article and see where items can be merged into other, existing articles and compare to other television series articles to see how the formatting and separations are done. My belief is that since this is main article for Downton Abbey (season 1), Downton Abbey (season 2), Downton Abbey (season 3), Downton Abbey (season 4), Downton Abbey (season 5) and eventually Downton Abbey (season 6) along with a host of other articles, we may want to create Downton Abbey (disambiguation).

One other thing...we can use some screen captures from the series as non free images as long as they follow all of Wikipedia's policies and procedures as well as the non free content criteria. I don't suggest there be a lot of uploads because, should it be uploaded incorrectly, it will just get deleted and someone should really try to look for the best images that can be used on multiple articles and perhaps benefit the articles without images of actors.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any change I make will have an edit summary to explain and I will stick strictly to MOS and guidelines. Some content may need drastic trimming such as the cast section. Generally the cast list is not in tables (prose is actually suggested) but a simple list will suffice. It is also too detailed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the cast list is also doubled with a character list. To be honest, I don't think that should be on this page but I will look into it. I believe the characters are a part of the plot so to begin with I will move the character table into the proper section.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't remove the tables in the "Cast" section just yet; I've seen this sort of table in other popular tv shows articles (For example, The Walking Dead). But I think the character table in the "Series Overview" can definitely go. (The only thing that might need to be integrated into the Cast section is the little "†" signs.)—Msmarmalade (talk) 13:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe some of the name information e.g. "Cora Crawley (née Levinson), Countess of Grantham" vs "Cora Crawley, Countess of Grantham"—Msmarmalade (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at the FA articles and aim towards those. Tables do not belong in the plot section for sure and in a caste section it might be best covered in a bulleted list or simple prose. I have not even started that yet. I will compare other articles of this nature. Off the top of my head, they should be collapsed to start with.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

I am going to trim off redundant content on the performers/actors. I trust nothing will be lost completely as any main articles at this point would be the actor articles, but we seriously do not need tables with the information doubled up. I am going to do this in three stages. First. Deleting the tables completely, reducing everything in the main cast down to a bulleted list that I will (second) add a few lines of text describing the characters. I will save as much descriptive text as possible but I am going to be using reliable sources to avoid any perception of original research as this will be extensive. Second. I am going to add a family tree for the Crawley family and departmentalize the staff sections. What this does is use the "plot overview" to go into the details of the characters slightly (perhaps prose is better than a bulleted list for this reason) and use a family tree to illustrate the intricate family relationships that is center in the ongoing arch of every seasons and every episodes storyline. Genealogy is probably an excellent way to demonstrate a major part of the show in a small illustration using wikimark up like this:

Just one adjustment needed. In Season 3 Episode 9 (the Christmas Special) it clearly states that Violet Crawley The Dowager Countess of Grantham was SISTER to Lady Flintshire Susan MacClare's Mother. Therefor unless this unknown Father's name was Roberta the Sibling lines show that Susan's Father was the one related to Violet!! (Susan and Violet are walking together when the statement claiming the above statement) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.53.23.204 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good catch and only now got changed from a recent debate. Sorry about that.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Visual mess

For a few days now, since changes were made to the organisation of sections, the infobox clashes with article text in a Firefox browser, and creates a huge page gap with Chrome and Internet Explorer.

I understand the general idea but priority should be new season 1, 2, 3 etc articles so that a quick overview of plot points can lead in this article as a 'Series Overview' (as per Walking Dead etc) and remove the mess. Then season production info can be moved to each individual page from this article's 'Episodes' and 'Reception'. (General info on regular locations etc would remain under 'Production').

Changes are being made but creating those sub pages for each season seems the priority to move the bulk off this article. Then the main an sub-pages could be worked on. Could creating the season sub-pages be prioritised? AnonNep (talk) 17:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I began creating the sub pages and got sick this winter and then busy and...well you know how real life is, don't need to write a book here. ;-) The first series article was redirected by an editor and I have since reverted that but we may need to begin creating the articles to begin splitting off the large amounts of content that really is very messy in this article and...I must say, one of the more viewed articles on Wikipedia. So, I really should get back to work on this. Sorry for the delay.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary fix for character table double up

I've removed this table from the Series overview section, as it was a double up of the cast section, albeit in different format. As well as appearing in the wrong section, It was causing spacing issues with the infobox. The information must be consolidated with either this article, or the List of Downton Abbey characters article.—Msmarmalade (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley family

Actor	Character	Position	Appearances
Hugh Bonneville	Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham	Lord Grantham, head of the Crawley family	Series 1–
Elizabeth McGovern	Cora Crawley (née Levinson), Countess of Grantham	Lady Grantham, Lord Grantham's American heiress wife	Series 1–
Michelle Dockery	Lady Mary Josephine Crawley (née Crawley)	Eldest daughter of Lord and Lady Grantham; widow of Matthew Crawley	Series 1–
Laura Carmichael	Lady Edith Crawley	Middle daughter of Lord and Lady Grantham	Series 1–
Jessica Brown Findlay	Lady Sybil Cora Branson (née Crawley) †	Youngest daughter of Lord and Lady Grantham; late wife of Tom Branson	Series 1–3
Maggie Smith	Violet Crawley, Dowager Countess of Grantham	Lord Grantham's mother	Series 1–
Allen Leech	Tom Branson	Chauffeur of the family (series 1–2), agent of the estate (series 3–5); widower of Lady Sybil Branson	Series 1–Christmas Special 2014
Dan Stevens	Matthew Reginald Crawley †	Heir presumptive (third cousin once removed) of Lord Grantham; former lawyer, latterly co-owner of the estate; late husband of Lady Mary Crawley	Series 1–Christmas Special 2012
Penelope Wilton	Isobel Crawley	Matthew's mother; widow and former nurse	Series 1–
Lily James	Lady Rose Aldridge (née MacClare)	Cousin and ward of the Granthams; daughter of The Marquess and Marchioness of Flintshire and wife of Atticus Aldridge	Series 3–
Samantha Bond	Lady Rosamund Painswick (née Crawley)	Lord Grantham's sister	Series 1–
Ava Mann (Series 4) Fifi Hart (Series 5)	Miss Sybil "Sybbie" Branson	Daughter of Lady Sybil and Tom Branson	Series 3–Christmas Special 2014
Cole & Logan Weston (Series 4) Oliver and Zac Barker (Series 5)	Master George Crawley	Son of Matthew and Lady Mary Crawley, heir-presumptive to the Earldom of Grantham and the Downton estate	Christmas Special 2012–
Peter Egan	Hugh "Shrimpie" MacClare, Marquess of Flintshire	Lord Flintshire, Rose's father and ex-husband of Susan MacClare	Christmas Special 2012, Series 5-
Phoebe Nicholls	Susan MacClare, Marchioness of Flintshire	Lady Flintshire, Rose's mother and the dowager countess's niece also ex-wife of Hugh "Shrimpie" MacClare	Christmas Special 2012, Series 5-
Shirley MacLaine	Martha Levinson	Mother of Lady Grantham, American	Series 3, Christmas Special 2013
Paul Giamatti	Harold Levinson	Lady Grantham's brother	Christmas Special 2013^[1]

Staff

Actor	Character	Position	Appearances
Jim Carter	Charles "Charlie" Carson	Butler	Series 1–
Phyllis Logan	Elsie Hughes	Housekeeper	Series 1–
Brendan Coyle	John Bates	Lord Grantham's valet (and his former batman during the Second Boer War); husband of Anna Bates, widower of Vera Bates	Series 1–
Siobhan Finneran	Sarah O'Brien	Lady Grantham's lady's maid	Series 1–Christmas Special 2012
Rob James-Collier	Thomas Barrow	First Footman, later Lord Grantham's valet, then Under-Butler	Series 1–
Joanne Froggatt	Anna May Bates (née Smith)	Head housemaid, later Lady Mary's lady's maid; wife to John Bates	Series 1–
Lesley Nicol	Beryl Patmore	Cook	Series 1–
Sophie McShera	Daisy Mason (née Robinson)	Kitchen maid, later Assistant Cook; widow of William Mason	Series 1–
Thomas Howes	William Mason †	Second Footman; briefly married to Daisy	Series 1–2
Rose Leslie	Gwen Dawson	Housemaid	Series 1
Kevin Doyle	Joseph Molesley	Matthew's butler and valet, later a footman at Downton Abbey	Series 1–
Amy Nuttall	Ethel Parks	Housemaid, later Mrs Crawley's Housekeeper and Cook	Series 2–3
Clare Calbraith	Jane Moorsum	Housemaid	Series 2
Matt Milne	Alfred Nugent	Second Footman, O'Brien's nephew	Series 3–4
Ed Speleers	James "Jimmy" Kent	First Footman	Series 3–5
Cara Theobold	Ivy Stuart	Kitchen maid	Series 3–Christmas Special 2013
MyAnna Buring	Edna Braithwaite	Former maid, then briefly Lady Grantham's lady's maid	Christmas Special 2012–Series 4
Raquel Cassidy	Phyllis Baxter	Lady Grantham's lady's maid	Series 4–
Jeremy Swift	Spratt	The Dowager Countess's butler	Series 4-

Crawley family friends and acquaintances

Actor	Character	Position	Appearances
David Robb	Dr Richard Clarkson	Family doctor	Series 1–5
Charles Edwards	Michael Gregson (missing, presumed dead †)	Magazine editor, lover of Lady Edith and father of her daughter	Series 3-4
Jonathan Coy	George Murray	Lord Grantham's lawyer	Series 1, Christmas Special 2011–Series 3
Bernard Gallagher	William "Bill" Molesley	Joseph Molesley's father	Series 1, Series 3-4
Brendan Patricks	The Hon Evelyn Napier	Suitor of Lady Mary	Series 1, Series 4
Michael Cochrane	Reverend Albert Travis	Vicar of Downton village	Series 2–3
Douglas Reith	Richard Grey, Lord Merton	Mary's godfather, love interest of Isobel	Series 3-5
Tom Cullen	Anthony Foyle, Lord Gillingham	Crawley family friend and Mary's suitor	Series 4–5
Julian Ovenden	Charles Blake	Evelyn Napier's boss, suitor of Mary	Series 4–5
Andrew Scarborough	Timothy "Tim" Drewe	Tenant farmer on the Grantham estate, foster-father of Edith's daughter	Series 4–5
Daisy Lewis	Sarah Bunting	Schoolteacher, and friend of Tom's	Series 4–5
Matt Barber	Atticus Aldridge	Suitor of Lady Rose, later her husband	Series 5

References

^ David Rockne Corrigan. "Paul Giamatti will play Countess Cora's brother Harold Levinson on Downton Abbey's fourth season," National Post, 25 June 2013.

Archives broken

I think the archives for this talk page may be broken, can someone knowledgeable please take a look? Thanks, —Msmarmalade (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page is quite slow in turnover and there was only one manually created archive. I've created a second one from anything pre-2014. Both archive links appear at the top.

Final season

I've removed the note in the header paragraph, stating that season six is going to be the last, as that, so far, is nothing more than a rumor (and the request for a citation had never been filled). There have also been a couple of related articles on the Guardian today, so I guess we'll just have to wait, and see what happens: Reality check: is this the end for Downton Abbey? & Downton Abbey: What should happen in the final episode?. 96.46.205.200 (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

iTV has already disputed the claims to People magazine and said it is speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:A700:7D7D:18DC:D506:CA0E:48D3 (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rumours of Downton Abbey ending with Season 6 have been confirmed. Most of the castmembers' contracts are expiring after series 6 and the castmembers are ready to move on. Source: It's True: Downton Abbey's Sixth Season Will Be Its Last Jim856796 (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

End date

Why can't we specify the end date of December 25 2015?Corabal (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're meaning the hidden comment in the infobox, that's because it doesn't get added until after the episode has aired.--5 albert square (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Is there a forum for general discussion of the article's subject? Just asking. — Ineuw talk 01:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages on Wikipedia are for discussion of editing an article, not for general discussion of the article's subject. Hertz1888 (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.— Ineuw talk 22:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Upstairs, Downstairs

I would have thought there would be some discussion of or comparison with Upstairs, Downstairs. Sca (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca: Have at it! Any contributions you or others wish to make along those lines are most welcome. Professor JR (talk) 07:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, I'm not qualified as a drama or literary critic. But it's self-evident that the older series inspired or at least informed some of the leitmotifs in Downton. (Some reference to the parallel might be made at the end of the Upstairs, Downstairs article as well.) No doubt it's been written about by media wonks. But I don't know if articles such as this would be considered reliable sources. Sca (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree is wrong - Sybil was the youngest

The family tree states that Sybil was born 1889, Mary in 1892, and Edith in 1894. Sybil was the youngest - her birth year would be more like 1899. The tree also does not include Edith's daughter. I cannot figure out how to edit the tree - can someone fix this mistake? Thanks.MisterZed (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The year 1895 is sourced here. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree corrected. Thank you for catching the mistake. Hertz1888 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also add Edith's daughter to the tree? MisterZed (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave that for others, such as User:Mark Miller, who are more skilled with such charting, to do. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes and yes. I'll fix now. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note about Marigold's last name. According to the plot, when Edith takes her daughter back from the Drews, she presents a valid copy of a Geneva, Switzerland birth certificate. The laws in most European nations was similar at this time in these regards and may still be in effect. The last name of the child would be that of their legal parent. Since Edith did not marry Michael Gregson and had to have the child away from society in England in another country, where no one would recognize her, they would have listed the known father, checked a box or hand wrote the terminology of "illegitimate" and given the child the last name of Crawley in this case.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the edit – and the explanation! Hertz1888 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now, this is purely speculation and I would indeed need to check the laws of the time however, I can say that a similar situation is part of a family tree I have researched and is only a couple of years off from this date. Locations differ greatly, but situations are indeed similar, so I feel confident this will be the likely choice of writers if mentioned at all, but we should at least allow this logic to remain until disputed by plot details of the upcoming season or someone can point out a different reasoning for the Gregson name.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The surname would be whatever Mr Drewe made it up to be; he and Margie took Marigold in and he passed her off as a daughter of a late friend of his. Marigold was, until Edith took her back, the child of one of Mr Drewe's friends, so Marigold's surname could be anything from Smith to Boyzitbig. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it wouldn't. She had the birth certificate made before she made the deal with Drewe and there was no "friend" just a story that was made up. Are we watching the same production? The name of record would be from birth and the way it would be added to a tree is the name inherited from the mother or the eventual married name.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wrong. Edith cannot legally acknowledge Marigold; it would be a laughing stock for her. Thus, the fake friend that Drewe made up - and whatever surname he gave to said fake friend - would be the one that Marigold would have been BAPTISED UNDER (As Margie mentions that the Drewes did baptize Marigold). Thus the surname is neither Gregson or Crawley. It is whatever the hell the surname of the fake friend was that Mr Drewe made up. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion of the primary source material as presented. The character of Edith did indeed legally acknowledge "Marigold" by having a Birth Certificate made at the birth of her daughter in Switzerland...where no one knew her. Even the character of Mr. Drewe states how brave she was for doing so. When Mrs. Drew rips up the copy she was presented, Edith tells her she has more. Christening information is irrelevant as Marigold was not brought up by the Drewes. We were several episodes in with Marigold living in the nursery and whatever "made up" name (never even hinted at in the plot by the way) would not be on the family tree because everyone knows she is the actual daughter of Edith now but Mary. Legally, she would a Crawly. But the script in the next season could well state that Edith lied and gave the child Gregsons last name. Al we have to go by are the facts depicted. Edith has a legal document that proves she is Marigold's mother. The fact is, if it said Gregson, Mrs Drew would have made a point to say the name wasn't even her last name. Condense this down and it would almost have to be Crawley. --Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yet the Drewe's baptized Marigold and chose the name of Marigold in the first place. This implies that she'd have taken her fake!father's surname and is Marigold [whatever her fake father's surname is] and that yes, legally she is Marigold Crawley... but she's not acknowledged as that anywhere as it's still a family secret and not publically know.

Thus, yes, legally, Marigold is, indeed, Marigold Crawley (as you said, Edith has the birth certificates!) but publically, until illegitimacy becomes less of an "OMG! A BASTARD CHILD!" thing, she'd be known as whatever surname Mr Drewe invented. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Tree needs adding too; in Denker's first episode, Violet mentions her mother. She says something about "my mother's maid gave me this [e.g. the teapot she's talking about] on my wedding". Also, Robert has an aunt who, in 1860, "married a Gordon". DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plot content not based off primary source

Only the primary source, the film or television production, can be used for plot descriptions. Character descriptions cannot contain "inside" information that is not depicted on screen. Just because it is in the script, does not mean it was depicted. The script is not the primary source, the final production is. All birth dating from the family tree has been removed for the moment so that a discussion can begin to determine what, if any, birth dating should be mentioned in the plot/character descriptions and family tree. The show itself depicts a hereditary family line, dependent on an heir to continue their family line into the future. With no male heir, the plot centers on Mary marrying one of the known heirs. Historic dating aside, even Patrick Crawley's death is left more than a little in doubt.

So, what if any dating should be mentioned in the plot/character descriptions as well as the family tree?

Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 17:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we use canon information, correct? Thus the scripts would count as Julian Fellowes, who provides WORD OF GOD and wrote the scripts, would be the highest tier of canon. Unless, of course, the show says differently. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not use canon information. We use real world perspective of the primary source.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many subjects on Wikipedia where there is a large fanbase such as The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Game of Thrones. Many times fans will attempt to edit these articles from their perspective as loyal and dedicated "fans". But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has guidelines and policy about the addition of content, even content based on a fictitious plotline. It isn't that all of your contributions were "incorrect" but the majority did not improve the template. I admit, we all here missed the Roberta line going to unknown and not Roberta. That was my mistake and if you look above, someone pointed it out earlier. If you feel strongly about something, lets discuss it and try to come to a consensus of editors as to what is notable enough from what is depicted in the production to add to the plot/character and family tree summaries.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a wiki - and something you evidently have no grasped by the looks of things - is to provide canon information. Canon information is

1) Julian Fellowes, scripts
2) The show
3) anything said by the actors. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. I gave you links to look through to familiarize how Wikipedia works. If you take some time you will see that wikis are not a good example to compare.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the point of Wikipedia is to provide canon information about the show. The information I provided is canon. Also... where are these links? DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Nevertheless, the point of Wikipedia is to provide canon information about the show" No, Wikipedia is not for that use. You now have your own talk page. Look at the top of the page to the right where you see your username with a grey "0". Next to that is the word "Talk". Click that. It is your talk page. If you receive a message that O may be red now and be "2" or "3" by now. Here is a direct link: User talk:DowntonAbbeyFan.

Also you should read through; WP:INUNIVERSE about the use of such "canon" information. Being the intent of the writer means it might be something to mention in the "production section" as we use WP:Real world perspective because the narrative of the primary source is the only plot.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Basically this falls under:

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.

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that much of the article has been cleaned up as much as possible to maintain the B rating and improve it enough to become a GA (Good Article) article or even FA (Featured article) In order to do this we must write from a real world perspective and use source material in the proper location when appropriate. One article we have that suffers greatly from this is: List of Downton Abbey characters.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does the page suffer? It looks perfectly fine too me except for a few D.O.Bs that I had to change because they were wrong.

I've just read through the things you suggested and... that basically backs up what I said: primary sources are the show. Secondary sources - but still VALID sources - are (and I quote) "Examples of useful information typically provided by secondary sources about the original work, or primary and secondary sources about information external to the work: the author or creator". This would be the scripts as they are written by the author/creator of the show. Fictography. Right, got it. Unfortunately, the birthdates are not unimportant; Violet, for example, is trying to get Mary married off before she gets too old... so fictography doesn't apply here. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a good faith attempt to explain this to you. Please take some time to read more. Wikipedia does not have a great tolerance for in universe perspective or trying to use the authors intent that did not make it to the screen in the plot portions of the summary. Sourced author intent can be discussed in the proper section which is the production section. I hope you do take time to learn how this works because you took time to register and discuss so you clearly want to collaborate. But Wikipedia is not a fan based wiki and we require editors to adhere to guidelines, policy and bright line rules. I believe I have provided a good start with the editor retention welcome. We took a good deal of time to develop what new editors need to know when they first register and much of what is there are my words.....so, I mean it when I say, I hope you eventually understand Wikipedia's core values.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be best if I leave. I can already see that you and I have conflicting ways that we believe this should be done - I'm stubborn and won't give up until I've been proven right and been given a satisfactory apology by the people in the wrong and I don't believe that's conducive here - and you believe it should be done differently. Thus, I shall leave to avoid anymore arguments; I'll go back to somewhere that I know my edits will be accepted and allowed. DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unable to edit within the guidelines and policies that have been established, what is considered the consensus of the overall community of editors over a very long period, then perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. This is not uncommon when fans used to editing fan based sites and wikis attempt to edit Wikipedia in the same manner. Also, on Wikipedia, discussion is an important part of how disputes are settled. Many times discussion turns to debate and debate becomes heated but that is the nature of discussion when one is new and refuses to accept "good faith" advise. Should you choose to stay and edit, and you should try it, not adhering to guidelines and policy or other bright line rules could eventually lead to a block. Keep your account and edit non controversial issues that are not related to a fan based subject for a while to get a perspective of how Wikipedia works. Editing with others is not always easy, but it is fun even if we have to compromise, lose and debate or learn an important lesson. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I usually find that yelling, blocking those who disagree with you (usually because they're wrong, especially if it's a subject you're very into!) and shoving about 3 pieces of evidence down their throats usually works to get along with people. It worked on the wiki when we had an annoying person there! DowntonAbbeyFan (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestries decorating Downton Abbey staircase

Presumably these are authentic in Highclere Castle. But does anyone know the details of their production as to when and where? Masalai (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Bond

As a casual reader of this page I've noticed that Samantha Bond has been removed from the cast list on at least 2 occasions, without explanation. Eagleash (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References are going dead, need wayback machine perhaps? Showed that program was aired by various providers

Most of the dead links I noticed just now had linked to a listing of the moment proving that Downton Abbey was aired by that provider. Now the provider displays the programs now available, as is logical. So, the site is there, but not the information or exact link on site first used. Is there a bot for that? :-) Mainly, I mean, do not delete the citation until the bot can try, or someone can try who is more skilled than I am at finding the site as it once existed. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to get archived URLs for all but 2 of the links marked as dead. Keith D (talk) 14:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Downton Abbey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120530060204/http://locationworks.com/library.php?reference=34285 to http://www.locationworks.com/library.php?reference=34285

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DVD Series Six

Very odd that the article has nothing to say about the availability of Series Six on DVD. Have been distributed by PBS as fund raising bonus item for some time now in US.-71.174.188.32 (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

www.shoppbs.org › Home › Shop Our Collections
Shop PBS
Masterpiece: Downton Abbey Season 6 (UK Edition) DVD - shopPBS.org ...
Downton Abbey Season 6 DVD (UK Edition) + The Ultimate Collection CD  with ...

Region: Region 1
Number of discs: 3
Studio: PBS
DVD Release Date: January 26, 2016
Run Time: 540 minutes
ASIN: B014E1TJV6
Amazon Best Sellers Rank: 
#5 in Movies & TV (See Top 100 in Movies & TV)
#1 in Movies & TV > DVD > Drama

"we still have the Christmas Special show to air at the end of next month so everyone is waiting in suspense for the final conclusion. Incidentally if you are impatient to see the last series, although the UK issue is released this month, that will not contain the 2015 Christmas Special whereas the later North American release will."

"Once the Daily Mail article lied about the reasons for the PBS editing, and Downton Abbey became so popular in the US that PBS was able to attract high quality funding, they not only aired the episodes as they did in the UK, but sometimes added scenes that weren't shown on ITV (since ITV airs commercials and has to cut things to fit around them).

"PBS now stamps their Downton Abbey DVDs "UK Version" because people are still passing around the story that they cut the show up liberally. The ironic part is that by only releasing the ITV versions on DVD, you'll never get to see the extra PBS scenes unless you record them as they air." -71.174.188.32 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Corrigan-1] David Rockne Corrigan. "Paul Giamatti will play Countess Cora's brother Harold Levinson on Downton Abbey's fourth season," National Post, 25 June 2013.

[1]