Talk:Downton Abbey

Co-production

We have referenced info that this series is a co-production with WGBH. There are numerous other sources that note this available in print and on the web. In this day and age of tight budgets these co-productions are becoming the norm. The info should be noted in the article no matter how many SPA's show up to try and remove it. MarnetteD | Talk 16:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There are two reliable sources that have been repeatedly removed, the one you restored and the PBS website source that both support this, as does the promotional materials for both the BBC and PBS. The real problem is that, for too long, the PBS/BBC and PBS/ITV (along with comparable BBC America co-productions) have been improperly identified as British rather than British-American productions. This isn't a matter of opinion, as too many editors seem to think. It's reliably sourced that this is a British/American production. --Drmargi (talk) 16:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Brideshead Revisited and The Jewel in the Crown were made without a penny of overseas money. Those days are gone, so the article should note that this is a co-production.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good example. PBS co-produced at least the last two seasons of Prime Suspect, and commissions a couple programs a year in collaboration with either the BBC or ITV, most recently Endeavour, I believe. Torchwood came over here and was made by Starz in the U.S. (that one is still not accurately reported in its article, but they're in the ballpark, anyway.) BBC America co-produces a fair few shows, including the now departed Robin Hood and possibly even the last season or two of Doctor Who (have to double-check that one.) There are others as well that don't spring to mind immediately. This isn't a judgment; this is accurate reporting of who produces what, and a full understanding of what constitutes production -- a process that is far more than geography and what takes place in front of the camera. International productions are becoming increasingly common, and not just for financial reasons. --Drmargi (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Downton Abbey is an international co-production. There is no real doubt about this, even though it is filmed in the UK. The sourcing is also clear on this issue.[1]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. It's documented in the article, it's in the end credits, the American producer is given equal billing with the British producers, and there's even American cast. What more do people need to believe this? Geography does not determine what in country a production originates. --Drmargi (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You and MarnetteD need to understand the difference between the characterization of "production" and "period drama." That an American company is technically co-producing means it's a British-American production, but regardless of the nationality of the company partnering with the British company, it is a *British* period drama. If a German company produces Robin Hood, it's a German production of a British period drama, not a German period drama. Odd that you keep trying to overrule many other editors on this point since it really isn't that difficult to understand and, by the way, is also consistent with the decision to use *British* English in the article, which you yourself have corrected where American English was used. Mirawithani (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

British/American

Is there some way to make it clearer in the opening sentence in what sense "British/American" is meant? I read it as meaning that the story/setting is equally split between Britain and America. While I know there are American connections and characters, the story is really primarily British, so I feel the current wording is a bit misleading. 86.176.210.150 (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that means it's a joint production between the two countries, with Carnival Films being British and Masterpiece being American.--81.109.72.78 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I was planning to delete "British/American" and instead label those two companies as respectively British and American where they are mentioned in the lead, but now I am confused about what "Masterpiece" refers to. It links to WGBH-TV, but the only mention of "Masterpiece" in that article is as a TV series (Masterpiece (TV series)), not a production company, so I don't understand what is meant. It doesn't make sense to say that a TV series produced a show. Also, the infobox on this article does not mention "Masterpiece" as co-producers. Should it? 86.160.216.252 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It should link to Masterpiece Theatre, actually. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Whoops. I can't read. Uhm, it's considered an anthology series, so that's why it's labeled TV series. So, yea. If you think about it in a novel comparison: Masterpiece is the name of the series, and the TV series that run on Masterpiece are like individual books that were written by different authors by run under the same series title. I don't know if that's accurate, but that's how I'm understanding it... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 20:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

But I still don't understand how a TV series, whether an anthology series or any other type, can be the producers of the show. Producers are people or companies, not the names of series. It would only make sense if "Masterpiece" is also a production company with the same name, but that's not clear from the linked article. 86.160.216.252 (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea actually. The only thing I know is that in the credits, Downton is listed as "a Carnival / Masterpiece co-production" as do the credits on the PBS Downton page (here for series 1). I don't know, it doesn't make any sense at all. I've never really noticed this before. I'm not being helpful at all... ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 21:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

TV Shows Airing in America

I think there needs to be a separate section about when the episodes air in the United States and their respective DVD releases. On the page describing the List of Downton Abbey episodes, it mentions that the series is British and produced by a British media company, but fails to mention that the series overview refers to UK dates for the series' premieres and finales. On Amazon, we will be able to order the Season 3 DVD on Jan. 29, 2013, but it does not air in the USA until Jan. 6, 2013. It has already begun airing in the UK (this information is available under "Episodes - Series three" in this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.138.138 (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Cached versions of the references

Well, the referencing is a bit of a mess here, but I'm not going to get into that now. If anyone ever finds that a reference on this article goes down or something, drop a line on my talk page. I just went through a created WebCites for every reference, including the news articles. I'm also going through the ITV and PBS websites and creating webcites for those should anyone need them. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 16:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Main Cast

Allen Leech was not an opening title credited member of the lead cast in series one-two, nor a member of the Crawley family. This probably should be clarified in the castr table. Eshlare (talk) 07:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Posting the positions of the characters as of their last appearance of the show allows for major spoilers (for example, William dying, or Anna marrying Bates). Maybe just including their position at the start of the show? Or leaving out their position altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C555:8470:E159:D5CB:2E65:653 (talk) 09:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 Feb 2013

As currently written, many of the character descriptions contain significant plot spoilers, such as announcing a death or marriage that does not take place until well into the series. Plot spoilers are to be expected in sections of articles that are labelled "Plot" or "Story." However, a section labelled "Characters" is likely to be consulted not by readers looking for plot spoilers, but rather by those new to the series who are just looking for help in keeping track of the many characters in the show. So the plot spoilers are most unwelcome in this section.

I strongly recommend:

1. Re-write this section so that characters are described in the status they have when first introduced. 2. Insert a statement to that effect at the beginning of the detailed descriptions.

98.160.133.243 (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2012

Episode 1 Series 3 was shown on Prime TV in New Zealand tonight.Prime TV New Zealand Thanks Auda Auda (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Request must be formatted as "(add/change) "x" to "y" because (reason)." gwickwire | Leave a message 00:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Right Honorouble"

The Earl may be a Rt. Hon., but in that era his wife would not have been. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.237.113 (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

British-American period drama?

Hi, I am failing to see any sources that support this? Please can someone explain this to me? Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Masterpiece is an American anthology production, and Rebecca Eaton, one of the executive producers, works for WGBH in Boston (PBS) as the executive producer for Masterpiece. PBS/Masterpiece co-produce a fair few productions eventually shown under the Masterpiece umbrella, including Downton and Endeavour. It's all in the credits.

As an aside, thanks for archiving the page, but it might be wise to restore some of the more recent discussions, given the season is still underway, and their topics may come up again. I've pulled back the October discussions and one about the origins of the show from late September, which are clearly still needed on the active talk page given this discussion. --Drmargi (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) This was previously discussed at Talk:Downton Abbey/Archive 1#British/American. As I originally stated, and as Drmargi stated above, it is stated to be "a Carnival / Masterpiece co-production" in the credits, on the official ITV press released (example here), and on the PBS credits page for series 1. (To provide some credits that can be seen right now) I can't really wrap my head around how Masterpiece, an anthology series, can produce something (unless it's also a production company). But since the credits say Masterpiece co-production, the series is British-American. At least, that's the reasoning and logic behind it. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:26, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Masterpiece is the banner for the network's co-productions; it functions as a production company and as an anthology. It's funky, I admit, but that's how it works. Oh, and sorry! As you were posting, I pulled the discussion you linked out of the archive and back onto this page, since it's still far too contentious to be archived yet, so your link won't go where you want it to. --Drmargi (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't notice the discussions where still going. I think you have missed my point, on the article itself i can't see the source that backs up the claim. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand your point. The links Parasol provides above, one from the US and one from the UK, provide the sourcing, if you feel the credits aren't sufficient, as they are for the British side of the production. They get removed constantly, when nationalistic editors take exception to the show being described as British/American. --Drmargi (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Other than the credits do we have anything to support it please? Something that specifically says it, this is cuasing some confusion amongst us. --JetBlast (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just been looking into this more, IMDB says that it is a co-production with Masterpiece (GB), maybe its a British arm to the production company? If this is the case it wouldn't be joint British-American. --JetBlast (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

First I am not seeing the (GB) that you mention in that link but I can only copy and paste what Dr Margi has already pointed out above "Masterpiece is an American anthology production, and Rebecca Eaton, one of the executive producers "of Downton Abbey", works for WGBH in Boston (PBS) as the executive producer for Masterpiece." There is no British production company called Masterpiece. The credits and the reference that we have provided certainly meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sourcing. There are other sources out there if you search a little. Be aware that since the economic collapse of 08 co-productions like this occur all the time. At least in part because no one company has enough money to produce show like this on their own. MarnetteD | Talk 00:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

IMDB is also an unreliable source. Someone can simply assume Masterpiece is British, add GB, and there is no oversight to be sure it's accurate. It's likely someone saw the GB in the middle of the station's call sign (which actually stand for Greater Boston, if I remember correctly) and jumped to the wrong conclusion; it doesn't help that the station's studios are in Brighton, Mass. Bottom line: Marnette has it nailed. The BBC and ITV have a done a fair number of co-productions with both Masterpiece and with BBC America, particularly in recent years. This has been adequately sourced by both ITV and Masterpiece from the beginning; this continued questioning beyond the standard of WP:VERIFY is simply nationalistic refusal to accept this program is a joint production. --Drmargi (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• If it's a British-American co-production then fine, the article should say so. The problem I still have is that the opening sentence "Downton Abbey is a British-American period drama television series..." makes it sound like the series is set in the US and Britain. While there are US connections in the storyline, the setting is primarily British, and in that respect I believe the opening sentence is potentially misleading. 81.159.107.19 (talk) 03:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how the sentence in any way suggests that the series is set in Britain or the United States; based on that sentence, the series could be set in France for all I know. Grammar-wise, British-American is a modifier for the word series, so I don't see how it can be mistaken as the setting; if you drop all the modifiers it reads, "Downton Abbey is a series." But that may be besides the point. Series articles of any type are typically formatted as "NAME is a(n) COUNTRY OF ORIGIN GENRE TYPE series yadda yadda yadda" so I still don't see how there could be any confusion. But then that may be because I've watched the series. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 18:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

The way it reads made it sound like Downton Abbey was filmed in and about the UK and America. Although it is filmed in the UK and that it is supposed to be set in Yorkshire, i think that the opening sentance needs to be re-written. So what if it is produced by English and American companys, but both writers are british, the show was first aired in the UK, set in the UK and should there for be classed as a british drama with production from both the UK and America as that would be much clearer for readers. Thank god Australia havent had an input on this as that would make a much more messy situation! JMRH6 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: I removed Gareth Neame from the opening sentence as the credits list Fellowes as the sole creator.

I seriously think I just know the sentence too well and am having a hard time seeing if it's potentially confusing. I'm considering notifying WikiProject Television to get fresh opinions on the sentence.

I still think the sentence clearly states only what country (or countries in this case) created the series. And because of that, I do not see how the sentence suggests in any way where the series is set or filmed. Country of origin does not in any way state where the series was filmed or is set. For example, Firefly is an American production but is set in another star system; Baccano! is a Japanese series and it's set in the United States. As for country of origin being confused for where the series is filmed: Game of Thrones is an American production, but it is filmed in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Malta, and Morocco (and is set in a fictional world), and there are plenty of American series that are filmed in Canada (Suits, Once Upon a Time, to name two. These examples are set in the US though). So I still don't see how calling Downton a British-American series states in any way that it is set in Britain, the United States, or both. Third sentence is the one that addresses setting.

But maybe my problem is that I am too familiar with the sentence and the show in general, so I cannot spot any potentially confusing bits. (Again, maybe we should call in fresh eyes from the WikiProject?)

Though I am now leaning toward this change: "Downton Abbey is a British-American period drama television series created by Julian Fellowes and co-produced by London-based Carnival Films and American-based Masterpiece." This way it's clear as to why it's British-American. Though maybe American-based should read Boston-based? Or maybe London-based should say England-based or something that sounds nicer than that. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm just not happy at all with "British-American period drama television series". As I said before above, to me it reads as if the series has a British-American setting, which, despite certain characters' American connections, is hardly true. 86.160.222.44 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The way it is written now "Downton Abbey is a British period drama television series created by Julian Fellowes and co-produced by Carnival Films and Masterpiece." seems perfect in my eyes as I agree with the above, saying a British-American show implies that it could be set in both Britain and America which may cause confusion. Mishka Shaw (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Molesley's first name

I can't find a credit sequence that refers to him as anything more than Molesley. Same with the press packets. But I can confirm that both The World of Downton Abbey and The Chronicles of Downton Abbey list Molesley's first name as Alfred in the cast lists. Not entirely sure where Joseph came from. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I did the same thing, and can't find Joseph either, although I'm sure I've seen it somewhere. I also checked the DA site for Masterpiece, and he's listed solely by his last name there. My only guess is that it comes up in dialogue; at one time I thought that might have been his father's name, but that turned out to be something like Thomas. It would seem we've got two options: leave it as credited (last name only) or let the books be the authority and add Alfred as a first name. He's definitely listed as Alfred Molesley at the end of the first book. So the it come down to whether the book is sufficiently canon to be a reliable source. I would say, given that it's written by Julian Fellowes' daughter, and has the various attributions to the show (tangentally clearing up any doubt that this is a US/UK co-production), that the book is a reliable source. I have the second one, too, but am keeping my hands off it until Downton 3 runs here in the US; I assume it has the same pedigree as the first. You certainly don't get a more reputable published than St. Martin's Press. --Drmargi (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Why "Abbey"?

A question by a non native speaker: Is it normal for an English country house to be called "Abbey"? Or does this imply that, in the fictional setting, the house is an actual former abbey that was turned into a secular dwelling during the English Reformation? -- 84.63.248.169 (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

A real-life example is Woburn Abbey. A house with "Abbey" in the name would be expected to be on or near the site of a former abbey, though sometimes little if any of the original monastic building might remain. 86.160.214.104 (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Northanger Abbey--68.231.15.56 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles and styles

If this article is going to list characters by their titles and styles, that should be done correctly. It is not correct to refer to an incumbent holder of a peerage title and his wife by both name and title, except in legal documents. "Cora, Countess of Grantham" would only be appropriate if she divorced the Earl of Grantham.[2] It is also inappropriate to refer to "the Earl" or "the Countess"; it is always "Lord Grantham" and "Lady Grantham".[3] Lady Sybil Crawley did not become Mrs Branson on her marriage. She took his last name but remained daughter of an earl and was thus Lady Sybil Branson (see Lady Cynthia Mosley, Lady Cynthia Colville, etc).[4] Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The number 1 priority for the character list is to make it clear which character is being referred to when there are multiple ways to refer to them and also when a particular style can mean more than one person (e.g. "Lady Grantham"). That take should precedent over a "correct" listing and scattering the names & titles across different columns is unhelpful. And Sybil herself was content to use the form "Mrs Branson" and was not someone who ran their life according to Debretts. If a person drops a style does it get automatically reattached to them? Timrollpickering (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not disagree with you; I would have nothing against listing them as "Robert Crawley, Earl of Grantham" and "Cora Crawley, Countess of Grantham". They were listed as "The Right Honourable Robert, Earl of Grantham", which was very odd. Sybil's decision to be styled as "Mrs Branson" was an exception, not a rule, as has been suggested in the archive of the this talk page. That is why I brought it up. Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The definite article before the form of address "The Lord Grantham" in the table seems incorrect. It may be appropriate for a baron, but not for an earl. He is the Earl of Grantham and is addressed as Lord Grantham, but not a combination of the two, no? —Torontonian1 (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

CS1-3

What does "CS1-3" mean in the cast list? 86.160.222.44 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CS1 -> Christmas Special 1 (2011); CS2 -> Christmas Special 2 (2012), etc. --EliOrni (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that. However, I do not understand what "CS1-3" means. 86.167.19.105 (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

First Christmas Special to Series Three, perhaps? Opera hat (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

CS1, 2, CS2, 3? Could be, I suppose, but I find it confusing. At first it looks like CS1, CS2 and CS3, but that is not possible. I think it should be rephrased, depending on what actually it does mean. 86.167.19.105 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC) [Actually, not sure if "CS1, 2, CS2, 3" is even possible either...]

I think the Christmas Specials should just be categorized in the cast lists as the last episode of that years series. So instead of CS1-3 It would just be series "2-3". This would avoid a lot of confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.118.166 (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer to see "Series 1", "Series 2", "Christmas 2011", "Series 3" and "Christmas 2012", so CS1–3 would become "Christmas 2011–Series 3". I believe it's much clearer and there is room. DBD 15:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning for character table?

I can't help feeling there should be some kind of spoiler warning on the character table. It's quite likely someone will look at it in order to find the actor who played a certain character etc. and at the moment it is too easy to see certain details (eg. Sybil/Matthew's deaths) without wishing to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.105.174 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this has been debated a great deal in the past, and the policy at the moment is that Wikipedia does not have any spoiler warnings anywhere. 86.179.7.159 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

great, I've been spoiled thanks to you. Can't you just put basic information on the table? Like stopping after "Youngest daughter of Lord and Lady Grantham" for Sibyl for example? 197.15.206.182 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Spoiler. As I say, there was a big debate about this in the past, and the decision was made that there would be no spoiler warnings anywhere, and also "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot" (per Wikipedia:Spoiler). It seems unlikely that that decision would be changed. 86.179.7.159 (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it spoils the plot, it does. We are talking about the death of two main characters that will occur after the second season, how can that not be a spoil? Besides, we're talking about the character table, it should contain basic information, you can put all the spoils you want when each character is developed, the information will not be deleted from the article but from one part of it. 197.6.127.227 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I should make it clear that I had no involvement with that wording, or with the decision or discussion that led to it, or with the table in this article that you refer to. I am just alerting you to the relevant policy, for information. 86.160.223.3 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

This should be very simple. No "spoiler warnings" are needed. The cast list should be a bare list of the names of the actors and the names of the characters in the show. A cast list should not and need not have any information other than that. Not a "later known as" or a "nee" or anything. The only name that should appear is the name of the actor and the name of the character when that character first appears, with no information that would reveal any plot points. You can have a separate section for "principal characters" that might or might not reveal plot points, but it should be separate from the cast listing. 64.125.223.132 (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. No spoiler warnings are needed if the cast of characters merely describes who the characters are and not what eventually happens to them. What happens to them should go into the synopsis of each episode. People who don't want to have the plot spoiled can choose not to read about the episodes. But they shouldn't have to learn about the eventual fate of each character when all they want is merely to sort them out. I tried to fix this on January 24 by removing references to the deaths of two main characters, but my changes were reverted. HowardMorland (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I also agree. I come to read this article about a favored show and find that one of the MAJOR characters is soon to die. Whatever conversation has proceeded this regharding spoiler alerts need to be revisited. As User Howard suggests...limit the information that is shown. Otherwise we do a dis-service to our reader which is the Prime reason WP exists. How does Big Brother handle its 24 hour feed situation? ```Buster Seven Talk 15:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: My Rollback---. Like I requested, it is just a weeks delay of the information. It is a COURTESY not to just US viewers but also tod any other Internationl Vieweres. Is it so important to include this info that you risk angering millions of viewers, And their anger will be towards Wikipedia, th encyclopedia that we all know and love. Please consider our readers. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As editors, we should not have to consider the feelings of those in a different territory watching the programme. The article is not exclusively written with a viewer in mind. The general reader will be better served with the relevant information - aslong as it has aired and can be verified - if it is a fact and relevant to the topic - there should be no problem with inclusion. Should anyone catch people attempting to impose censorship - an admin should be alerted immediately.Rain the 1 21:33, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds remarkably like a threat. I'm not talking about feelings. I'm talking about consideration of the readers that will come to this article. I would venture to say that the majority of those visitors will be viewers like me. There is a problem with inclusion, but the fact that you don't see it tells me that my request has fallen on deaf ears. From Wikipedia:Spoiler My point is this......But note that this does not mean such information must be included, either. Wikipedia is not a textbook, instruction manual, or video game guide; it should contain information appropriate to an encyclopedia article on the subject. From above editor:

But they shouldn't have to learn about the eventual fate of each character when all they want is merely to sort them out. Not censorship, just consideration.```Buster Seven Talk 22:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC) There are many things that Wikipedia is not. One is a help group for Downton Abbey viewers. The fact they are a viewer should not be taken into consideration. We are not here to improse a sanction on information the way a production imposes a press embargo to protect spoilers. If a character is written out of the series, it is a solid fact and should be treated as such. Not hidden until all the remaining viewers have caught up. The request has not fallen on "deaf ears" - rather "heard it all before ears". For this is a worn out argument that the article is only for viewers consumption. The general reader is Wikipedia's target audience.Rain the 1 22:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I checked out the Wikipedia articles on the Harry Potter film series to see how this was handled. The main article does not have a "Cast of Characters" table at all. The separate article for each of the eight films has a "Cast" section which lists the major actors and the characters they play, followed by a short descriptive phrase identifying the character. There is no mention of the fate that character suffers in that film or in later films. You have to read the plot description to learn that information.

Doc Martin has a "Cast and characters" table, at the end of the article, which shows only the actor and the character, no character description at all.

In Upstairs, Downstairs (1971) the list of characters is in a separate article linked to the main article. In the list article there is a table matching actors and characters, plus a short descriptive phrase. Below the table is a text description of each character which does include that character's fate. For example, one of the major characters dies of Spanish flu in 1918; this fact is mentioned in the text but not in the table.

This is how this issue is usually handled in Wikipedia. It is also what readers expect. Furthermore, the description of a character as the "late husband" of so-and-so is not technically accurate. As long as he is a character in the plot, he is not the late anybody. In this case, he is not even a husband until the third year. Neither "late" nor "husband" is necessary to identify that character.

This is an article about fiction; it's entertainment. In the article on Henry VIII of England, it is proper to mention his birth and death dates at the top of the article, and his six marriages soon after. In discussing fiction, information is not customarily presented in that order.

Perhaps we should submit this controversy for dispute resolution. HowardMorland (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you completely (although there's no requirement on Wiki for format consistency among entries) that a listing of characters in the main entry for a novel, movie, play, or TV series should be for identification purposes only, by way of introduction.  It isn't exactly a question of saving Americans and others who haven't yet seen the developments from "spoliers," but that it is inappropriate for their brief descriptions to be constantly updated with information belongs in the separate Episode and Character pages.

It's unfortunate that some editors are so very anxious to reveal What Happens to Whom that all perspective is being lost in the character list.  For example, the most salient point about Branson, and the only thing that belongs there in addition to his being the chauffeur -- he's an *Irish republican upstart* -- is not even in his description.

No character who has appeared alive should be identified as "late"; in addition to that information being out of place in a character listing, an actor obviously cannot play a dead character other than in flashbacks.  So Vera should be identified as Bates' "estranged wife," period;  neither Matthew nor Sybil should be described as "late," and their spouses shouldn't be identified as their spouses, let alone "widowed."

Interesting that for some reason nobody's killed off Pamuk. :-) Mirawithani (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Two issues need to be separated: The idea that we shouldn't list character details because it spoils the plot is a total non-starter unless the existing Wikipedia-wide policy is going to be overturned, which seems extremely unlikely. The amount of character detail that is or isn't expected or appropriate in a cast list, however, is something that can be debated on its own merits. 86.161.61.221 (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the sole issue here—what should go into a cast listing. It should merely identify the characters by name and the actors portraying them. And perhaps some minimal identifying information relevant to the character's initial appearance. Reading a cast listing should not reveal any plot points, story arcs, or anything of the kind. Such information might be appropriate for other sections, such as "character synopsis" or "episode synopsis," but not for a cast listing section. Acsenray (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

UK vs. US/PBS versions

Please add information and sources explaining the differences between the original UK and the US/PBS versions of the broadcasts and DVDs. The last episode of Season 3 on PBS (Feb 2013) was about 95 minutes of content. How does this relate to the original UK broadcasts? How much of the total Season 3 content was cut in the US versions? How much was re-arranged?

Perusing the listings of DVDs for sale, it appears that all the DVDs, even in the US, are the original UK content. Is this true? -96.233.19.238 (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a list of differences between the ITV- and PBS-aired versions and the US v UK DVDs would be useful but I doubt that will happen on Wikipedia because neither the networks on both sides of the pond, nor Carnival -- the producers in the UK who do the editing for both -- have been forthcoming on this issue.  The main sources for the differences are bloggers and customer reviewers who have seen both versions, and in some cases even transcribe word-for-word scenes which appeared in only one version, but some determined editors refuse to accept such  sources as "reliable."

You may be surprised to learn that the Series 3 situation is the opposite of Series 1:  PBS actually aired scenes in Series 3 that ITV left out, whereas the Series 1 that ITV aired included 20-25 minutes of scenes that were deleted for PBS.  The most mentioned scene that doesn't appear in the UK version is the pre-wedding conversation between  Lady Edith and Sir Anthony:  After he indicates that he's having qualms about her having to put up with his age and disability, she counters, "Please understand, I don’t love you in spite of your need to be looked after, I love you because of it.  I want you to be my life’s work."  The reason that particular scene is getting so much irate attention is that many viewers think those last words of Edith's struck home with Sir Anthony and provide insight into why he bailed.

For Series 1, PBS wisely reproduced the UK version on DVD instead of the cut version that PBS had aired.  But since the PBS-aired Series 3 version is the more complete one, it's unfortunate that PBS apparently reproduced the UK version on DVD this time, too; the PBS Series 3 DVD describes itself as "Original UK Version," and some bloggers and reviewers are indeed reporting that this is the case -- if so, this means that the more complete PBS-aired version of Series 3 is not available on DVD at all.

(I'm not aware of any substantial UK/US differences in Series 2, but I didn't search around the internet because I didn't think enough of Series 2 to bother.)Mirawithani (talk) 21:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)