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
|
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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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
- 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]
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]
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]
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]
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:
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 IITalk to my owner:Online 16:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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]
"Hoppe: Our stations depend on our breaks between programs for connecting with their local audience and doing promotion, so we have set lengths for PBS hours, which is actually the longest hour in television: 56 minutes and 46 seconds. And that’s all content."
-71.174.188.32 (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]