Talk:Agatha Christie's Poirot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Hercule Poirot

When was the show titled Hercule Poirot in the US? When it first ran it was always called Poirot, so far as I can recall, and the Biography Channel reruns nowadays are always called Poirot. Binabik80 13:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Having noticed that the edit to the US title was added without explanation by an anon who made a flurry of edits from 14-18 March, several of which were questionable, I'm just going to revert it. Binabik80 14:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the original series was officially entitled "Agatha Christie's Poirot," while the one that began in 2003 is called "Agatha Christie Poirot," a difference of only one letter and an apostrophe, but possibly important for British legal reasons. But it's also true that an entirely different production team, retaining only Suchet, took over in 2003, and that the episodes that followed were more serious than those that came before, as well as being without Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon, the well-loved theme music and most of the emphasis on art moderne/streamlined buildings. —Preceding Bill Warren comment added by 76.93.23.129 (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

murder on the orient express

I noticed that on the 18th of April User 82.24.50.129 added "murder on the orient express" to the series 11 (not yet aired) list. Does anyone know where this information comes from or if it is verified? (I recall reading about "Mrs Mcginty" + "Dead man's folly" being done on IMDB and epguides.com, but not "orient express")

Both "Mrs McGinty's Dead" and "Dead Man's Folly" seem likely as they both involve Ariadne Olvier, who was only introduced in Series 10 (the atrocious adaptation of "Cards on the Table"). Condiment 02:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They might seem likely, but are they actually confirmed? If not, I'd suggest removing them. --JohnDBuell 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the original series was officially entitled "Agatha Christie's Poirot," while the one that began in 2003 is called "Agatha Christie Poirot," a difference of only one letter and an apostrophe, but possibly important for British legal reasons. But it's also true that an entirely different production team, retaining only Suchet, took over in 2003, and that the episodes that followed were more serious than those that came before, as well as being without Japp, Hastings and Miss Lemon, the well-loved theme music and most of the emphasis on art moderne/streamlined buildings.

USA airings

there isn't a mention of PBS or cable programming. why is that?

For that matter aren't the most recent "tv movie" episodes co-produced by the A&E cable network? --JohnDBuell 21:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Fraser error

I have noticed that the link to Hugh Fraser in the sidebox links to the wrong Hugh Fraser. However, I don't know how to change it. Steve13 17:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How much is left?

OK, this is slightly off-topic and violating the rules for talk pages, but I was wondering: how many Poirot novels and short stories by Christie remain to be adapted? How long before the producers reach Curtain? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've heard Suchet say on TV recently then when they finished filming the ones currently "in production" they have 8 left to film (inc. Curtain). Having tried to work it out personally, using the Wiki page of Poirot novels, I made it to be a few more but I must be wrong. --UpDown 09:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ta. So, assuming that by "in production" he was including the 2008 series listed here, they'll complete the canon some time around 2011. I wonder if there's a reliable source indicating that — it might be an interesting factoid to add to the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"In production" does include the 2008 ones. As for the source, well Suchet said it on Richard & Judy this month. Could we have that as a source? --UpDown 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you know the exact date he was on the programme, you could use {{cite interview}} or {{cite episode}} and use it as a source. Without the specific airdate, I don't know if we can use it as a reliable source — however, it's possible that a news source somewhere reported what he said, if someone wants to do a bit of searching. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No afraid I can't remember the date, apart from it was early July. I will try to do a bit of searching though. --UpDown 07:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this to be correct: after the 2008 series there are ten novels left to film including 'Black Coffee' a play adapted as a novel (The Big Four; Murder on the Orient Express; Three Act Tragedy; The Regatta Mystery; Dead Man's Folly; The Clocks; Hallowe'en Party; Elephants Can Remember; Curtain – plus Black Coffee) and fourteen short stories (The twelve stories (and an introduction) from the Labours of Hercules, plus the Market Basing Mystery and the LeMesurier Inheritance). --Philmein 20:30, 3 August 2008

Which is a lot more than Suchet's eight! I'm not quite sure where he got that figure?--UpDown (talk) 07:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that I am about as popular as a witch's armpit here right now but I'll add my voice anyway. Perhaps Black Coffee does not counts as its a play adapted into a novel and therefore not strictly part of a "canon". The Regatta Mystery is a short story not a novel so exlcude that and the other short stories and you have eight. Perhaps what he was thinking of. --Grakirby —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

See Talk:List of Agatha Christie's Poirot episodes#Remaining stories not yet adapted. Opera hat (talk) 09:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The production team, and Suchet, were very keen to assert that the entire Christie Poirot canon had been adapted, and this article currently states all her major literary work were adapted. However, this is far from true. The cleanest and most unarguable omission is 'The LeMesurier Inheritance' (you cannot say it has been adapted because someone in a different adaptation was given the surname LeMesurier! That story is entirely unadapted. A second clear omission is the Regatta Mystery - this was rewritten as a Parker Pyne story - but other re-written Poirot stories were adapted. Black Coffee was a play, and not written as a novel or short story by Christie. Six of the stories from the short story collection 'The Labors of Hercules' formed no part of the adaptation of the same name (or minimal reference to them was made, in a similar was to using the surname 'LeMesurier'); the foreword is also not part of the adaptation. The original, and entirely different, version of 'The Capture of Cerberus' was unpublished (although known of) until 1997. Christie expanded 8 short stories into novels, in one instance both were adapted (The Plymouth Express and The Mystery of the Blue train) - however, some of the expanded stories are too similar to the short versions to merit separate adaptation. Unadapted: 1 novel, 8 short stories, 1 play. Additionally, 7 of the 8 short stories later expanded have not been adapted- although it could be argued in most cases thatadaptations of the expanded stories cover all the main incidents and themes in the short ones. In summary I think the article wrongly conveys that all Chrstie's works were adapted - but one can understand why as that belief has been promulgated widely. – L Green

2A00:23C6:D000:1C01:70FE:4657:8FCA:55CA (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Writers

I've deleted the statement that only ten writers other than Exton and Horowitz have written for the show. A quick scan of IMDB (or the episodes' credits) give me 18 writers: Clive Exton, Russell Murray, Michael Baker, Stephen Wakelam, David Reid, David Renwick, Andrew Marshall, Anthony Horowitz, Rod Beacham, T. R. Bowen, William Humble, Bill Craig, Douglas Watkinson, Kevin Elyot, David Pirie, Nick Dear, Guy Andrews and Philpmena McDonagh. – ianfarrington --Grakirby —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC).

Trivia

I believe that while trivia sections are best avoided (so say the hallowed guidelines), as this is a start-class article the information from Grakirby is rather interesting and jolly-well better than nothing at all. Rather than deleting it for the sake of pedantry, and a little wiki-superciliousness, should one be so offended by its presence perhaps it would be better to move it or, godforbid, leave it alone unless one can think of a better subheading or placement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Septemberfourth476 (talk--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:INTERESTING - just because its "interesting" (to you) does not mean that it should be on Wikipedia. In addition, just because the section header was changed, it was still basically a "Trivia" section - the fact that an actor appeared twice as two characters in not notable and not worthy of inclusion. It frequently happens that an actor appears as different characters in one series, there is nothing special about this at all. Also, just because its a start-class article, does not mean irrelevant information is more acceptable just to fill up the page. IMDb is also not usually considered a good reference, but to be honest, even if a reliable ref was found, its immaterial, the information is not needed.--UpDown (talk) 06:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The additions under notable appearances are not only interesting (thank you, anon person) but relevant for the development of the series artistically. Your deletion as "not worthy of inclusion" is totally deletionist and subjective. It does not "frequently happen" that an actor appears as different major character in a series (Name six occaisions). IMdb is not considered a good reference and as I made clear this is a work in progress. Everything I have written is accurate (unlike your "undo" of my edit of Tim Fortescue's page which I note you did, UpDown, without references and thus reproduced a minor inaccuracy which I had thoughtfully corrected). I would have thought these additions would be welcomed (I belive they are by most people) and the reason they were added obvious. Quoting wikipedia rules out of context is simply not worthy of any edior. --Grakirby —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

You clearly are unaware of many WP practises. Just because something is "interesting" (a POV term, what you find interesting, another reader may not). I also do not appreciate orders like "Name six occasions". Actors often reappear in the same series, from sitcoms to Midsomer Murders, its not notable. If it is, find a reliable reference saying this is notable for Poirot. Just because something is accurate does not make it relevant, yes they have appeared three times or whatever, but its not needed. Also, a section marked "Notable Appearances..." is POV, notable according to whom? Please do not change further until a discussion has been had. I am happy to involve an experience TV editor if you wish - a neutral 3rd party is always a good idea.--UpDown (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that you have to prove that it is not notable which you are not done. Yes, I unable to use many wikipedia terms unlike you. I did not say that it was just interesting. I said it was relevant as well.Also having read the links to which you referred your interpretation was very selective. Editing and contributing is essentially a subjective practise and your editing style leaves nothing to other people's judgement.

I am happy to put this to a third party to be agreed upon but I think my edit stays until it is agreed that it should come down.

Poirot cannot be compared to Midsomer Murders.

You are not the boss of this page.Grakirby —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

You wish to add it to the page, thus it is for you to provide a reliable reference that shows that an actor appearing in a programme as different characters is notable. It is not relevant, acting is a job, therefore its not that "relevant" that an actor has been paid twice to appear in the same programme over 10 years apart. It happens on TV. Your edit should not stay unless a wider consensus agrees that a POV section on "notable" guest stars is appriopiate. I will contact User:AnmaFinotera, who has wide experience in TV articles, and will take a neutral approach.--UpDown (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts. Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm disappointed to see you have reverted anyway. You have also just, I think, broken WP:3RR. I will not report this as I didn't warn you before hand, but it would be advisable to revert your edit so you have not broken this rule.--UpDown (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I am disappointed you kept on editing it out when I do not believe your edit were worthy. I believe the page stays until a third party intervenes. ALso why did you deleted my edit about David getting th role due to Rosie Hicks??? This is entirely relevant to the starting of the series and Suc he's experience for the role. I believe it was referenced and therefore can only assume your intervention was some kind of personal goading. have to work now. More later..--Grakirby —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

I have contacted a 3rd party. It is disappointing you have not reverted bearing in mind your 3RR. You will actually find in my final edit I tided in the info about Rosie Hicks - whereas you in this edit removed it? And this it not personal, and I advise you read WP:AGF before making those accusations.--UpDown (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a personal vendetta by any chance? I checked the Tim Fortescue history and the revision at 09:16, 30 September 2008 seems to be the replacement of something relevant and accurate written by Grakirby by UpDown, for no reason other than its author. Let's keep personal squabbles off wikipedia, eh boys?--81.108.179.172 (talk) 11:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who you are - although I think I can guess. I edited the Fortescue article first, so it is likely he followed me there. But regardless, the version I reverted was backed up I believed by the Telegraph obituary (I had not the time to correctly reference it). Regardless though, this discussion is about THIS article, and by bringing up another article and trying to accuse others of acting in bad faith you do yourself no favours.--UpDown (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It was I, I forgot to log in. This is all a little too vicious for my liking. Yet, in the good old days of Yes Minister, a man would never back down from a 'name six' challenge. Alas, the little battle for Poirot rages on. Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood. --Septemberfourth476 (talk) 12:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Frankly both you and User:Grakirby are taking this to seriously, there is nothing "vicious" here, its a discussion - they happen on Wikipedia. Your "Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood" is totally over the top. And your comment about the "name six" - sorry but I do not give into demands, and such a request was riduclous in the first place. Both of you really need to do a more research it how Wikipedia works - its not for trival information nor should things be taken personally.--UpDown (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

User:UpDown I don't think its vicious at all and yes, I am taking it seriously (as are you). I don't think that Septemberfourth is being personal at all, he is talking a mildly ironic attitude to this battle. The 'name six' was quite clearly a reference to Yes, Minister but I would be intrigued if you could. But on a broader point the section you deleted was much broader than my original Trivia section and was the beginning of an attempt to show the artistic differences between in the original series and its later developement. All the post are to be seen in that context. I think you are confusing miscelleny with trivia. Odd facts when put together correctly can lead to a greater understanding of a whole subjecty.I still think that you were totally wrong to pull it all down and that your reading of the rules is selective. I read every rule that you posted and they were open to interpretation, which is the whole point.

You say you think you can guess who I am? I very much doubt it otherwise you would have done so already. I have hardly tried to conceal my identity. Re: Tim Fortescue. We can discuss that elsewhere. Who is the third party? Apologies for the Rosie Hick accusation. If you say so, I concede that point but no other! Grakirby

Again this is no "battle" as you say, you really are taking this too seriously. Please also note I didn't delete the section, as that would have been a 3RR breach, someone else did (not the 3rd party I asked - who for reasons can't get involved). You say to "show the artistic differences...", well good, but that would need good referencing before being put on there. This article already has enough unreferenced information without adding more. And it would need to be neutral, not your personal opinion. This is an encylopedia and we don't have sections of "odd facts" - if information cannot fit into an proper section then that info is clearly trivia and not needed.--UpDown (talk) 07:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me how seriously I am taking this! Just to say and this isn't aimed at you necessarily, but I find that there is too much deletionism which is based on personal opinion. You are right, the references were not 100% (I have never denied this and stated that it is a work in progress) but as you point out the site is badly referenced generally. That my contributions were deleted because of lack of rerencing whereas a lot of stuff had been allowed to remain strikes me as unjust.

Personally I think the site needs totally revamping and in any revamp a lot of my facts can be included.

For instance in my edit I state that a lot of new actors appeared in early series while more distinguished actors have appeared in later shows. This is relevant to how the series has developed. The fact about actors appearing twice is totally relevant to the direction of the series in how they create "Poirot's world". In a long-running series this is important.

Incidentally I think the entire series is set in 1936 (A brief calculation of the dates in Cat Amongst the Pigeons seems to back this up and I know that the episode The Kidnapped Prime Minister was set in 1936 having been transferred from WW1). I believe this is worth someone chasing up and inserting. How do we proceed?--Grakirby

Just because the article is badly referenced is no reason for adding more unreferenced information. The main problem is that a lot of your 'information' is personal opinion; there is no importance in the actors appearing more than once and any notion they create a "Poirot's world" is ludicrous. You need reliable references stating that there is anything notable about these actors appearing more than once. A reference would also needed to be added to say there is anything significane in more "distinguished" actors (itself POV) appearing in later episodes. In addition, the 1936 thing is your interpretation (as you say "I think"). You really need to remember these articles are not for you to add your views or intreprations of the series.--UpDown (talk) 10:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I find your manner odd and rather rude to be honest, but in the interests of harmony I will ignore it. My point about 1936 is that perhaps it was worth investigating. One of the reason why I had not posted it was because I had no references for it. Why do you bring that up as a point? I was merely raising it as an issue. I thought you/someone might be interested. Clearly not. The fact that I did not post it shows my good intent and the fact that you try to throw it back in my face shows that you, not I are taking this too seriously.

The information I provided is not personal opinion. Information cannot be personal opinion. Yes, there is an element of subjectivity in information included, but total objectivity is impossible for any editor including yourself (I note that in the deletion editors commented they cannot see relevance - that is subjective or as you call it personal opinion!)and for you to position yourself as such is fallacious and self-aggrandizing. I can provide certain information and I would hope for the help of others in order to achieve objectivity. That is surely the point of having many editors is that they can help subjectivity by a gradual approach to editing. Deletion is not gradual but an absolute approach to editing and therefore the most subjective and selective form of editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grakirby (talk • contribs) 10:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello people. If you ask for a third opinion: an actor who appears as different characters in series don't happen frequently. It is an interesting detail and as a big Poirot fan myself, I would like to read about that, definitely!.

Cheers Warrington (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, just because something is "interesting" does not means it relevant. Wikipedia is not for random information.--UpDown (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Warrington! Thanks for your support. If you have any fields of expertise in this matter I'd like to hear from you again! The "fight" (in the nicest possible sense of the word and with all due respect paid to my "opponent" who I regard as a brother, of course) goes on...

I have just been advised by a friend that since we asked for third party intervention and have received it, the post can go back up. So it will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grakirby (talk • contribs) 17:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Grakirby

As UpDown suggested, I took the liberty of referring this dispute for an impartial third opinion on the apposite WP page. Now this has been supplied, I hope the matter can be marked as resolved and the information remain. I hope Grakirby's further additions (dare I say improvements for fear of being accused of the heinous crime of POV?) are given a warmer reception.--Septemberfourth476 (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Grakirby (talk) 20:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Um, well the "third opinion" was meant to be someone who is an expert in editing TV articles, not a random editor. Regretably the person I wished to involve can't because of the editing of this page by a user (none of us in this discussion). There is nothing "notable" or unusual about an actor appearing more than once in different roles, its happended (to name a few off hand); Doctor Who, Terry and June, Midsomer Murders, Are You Being Served? and Coronation Street. There is nothing at all unusual about this, and you would need a ref to say its unusal. You also state actors who later gained "noteriety" - again says whom? --UpDown (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, while many of your additions are useful, all need the correct reference templates, not just a web link. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Much needs rewriting and placed in the proper, standard sections. I will attempt this soon.--UpDown (talk) 07:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

To expand on this, who says the following actors have achieved "noteriety"; Samantha Bond, Christopher Eccleston, Bill Bailey, Hermione Norris, Damian Lewis and Russell Tovey? It is POV for us to say they have, and how is it particulary important. All big actors star in small roles when they start out, its not that notable on that programme's article.--UpDown (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You are no longer part of the consensus and I think you will find that deleting when against the consesnus is not recommended.

I have read the rules both about referencing and about content and you are talking nonsense. The early actors are revelent because they indicate an artistic policy. STOP DELETING MY EDITS which have received popular support/consensus. Instead help build on the page if you have anything constructrive to add. I also note that you do not respond to me argumenst but just reassert the same thing. Having read the wikipedia rules, I am convinced that I am right and therefore, come hell or high water, my changes stay. Your estimation of what is "particually important" is subjective and indeed selective. As far as I am aware citing sources is only totally necessary when information is controversial. Sorry I didn't realise it was controversial that Chris Eccleston was famous? As for you being patronising re my other informatrion - leave it out. "Proper sections" - this page has not had proper sections until I came along. This page had three sections until I came along. So don't pretend you are any authority on the matter. I note that you can only name five not six which is traditional in circumstances like this. --Grakirby (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it increasingly hard to work with you, you have so little concept on how Wikipedia works. For a start "you can only name five not six which is traditional in circumstances like this" - what rubbish. There is no set number, and frankly thats just riduclous. You have no once answered my points, nor has anyone in fact. It is POV to say that an actor later achieved "notiety" - Russell Tovey???? But is POV for all of them, and how is it relevant. All actors start there careers in minor roles, why is it notable? You say they "indicate an artistic policy" - do you have a ref for that policy and how it indicates it. The page may have sections, but no proper ones ("Development of the Series" is not a usual TV section). And I'm not being patronising, just pointing things out. You should use ref templates.--UpDown (talk) 07:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Nota Bene WP:YESPOV which back up my point of view

Also WP:DUE

WP:SOURCES

TAKE A JOKE WHICH IS WHAT THE NAME SIX WAS!

"Not usual for a TV series. I have found no consensus for how a TV series page should look. There are many different ones.

"I will sort it out" - that is patronising. As ifd you are the only person who can sort things out. I am happy for you to sort out the references and play around with the format of this page. No doubt I will do the same. Just don't pretend that you are the only man who can do it.

I find it increasingly hard to "work with someone" who is dogmatic, ignores 3rd party arbitration and quotes rules out of context. Especially someone who accuses me of not answering points when that is what you are best at.

--Grakirby (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting reply really. Still not answering my points about why the POV of saying certain actors "noteiety" or why its notable at all as all actors start in minor roles. Or why actors appearing more than once is notable, when it happens often. Perhaps look at WP:TV for a guide to how TV articles should be. Please also sign your quotes, and make edits while logged in (not as IP address).--UpDown (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not signing off (although I think we all knew who it was!) and I have made no edits while not logged in. If there is any dispuite I will happily acknowledge which edits are mine, although I doYou are not answering my points about deletion when the rules I have read back me up, but rules are subject to interpretation. Re: POV my answer in in the links.

Fair enough re tags. However I would say that we have been to third party arbitration, received a response and that reponse backs me up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grakirby (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, then you didn't sign, a bot did it for you. You still don't answer the question...? Will you ever? I have replied to all of yours, and explained why the information should not be there. But you won't answer mine. Regarding the third party, I rather wanted one who would take part in the discussion, not do one revert on the article then go.--UpDown (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies not signing. I pressed the wrong button. Yes, I wanmted someone who could discuss as well, but beggars can't be chosers. We got a third party. Thery agreed with me not you (but still you took it down). I have answered your POV point. You have no replied to all of my point so don't pretend you have. Also you quote rules but I read a rule that said if there is a consensus deletion is not appropraite. Yet you have still deleted despite my consenus. Look that rule up if you like.--Grakirby (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No we need a discussion. Don't forget after all someone agreed with a few days ago and removed it. We need a discussion. You have not answered this "It is POV to say that an actor later achieved "notiety" - Russell Tovey???? But is POV for all of them, and how is it relevant. All actors start there careers in minor roles, why is it notable? You say they "indicate an artistic policy" - do you have a ref for that policy and how it indicates it." or why an actor who appears as more than one character is notable (and provided a ref for this being unusual). A "consensus" has not happended yet so pretend it has. And please, what are your other points?--UpDown (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

A consensus? The dispute has gone as follows: you disagreed with Grakirby's additions and deleted them. I thought they were suitable and gave my say. You still disagreed so I put the page open to 3rd party arbitration. Warrington, a 3rd party unknown to any of us, took a look and thought that the additions should stay; again you disagreed and deleted them again. A further user (unknown to any of us also) Josiah Rowe, a prolific television wiki-editor, thought this was inappropriate and reverted it. And still you remain querulous and holler foul play. When you say consensus you actually mean getting your own way. This dispute has escalated way beyond its importance; let's end the peevishness. --Septemberfourth476 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that you forgot this edit? JosiahRose has not commented here, which is what the 3rd party should do.--UpDown (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the Kennedy assassination. Its not a conspiracy. He just forgot. Agree with Septemberfourth. Am pleased this time the edit has remained and expect it to continue to.

--137.73.74.209 (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't commented here because I hadn't noticed that there was discussion underway. I have the article on my watchlist, noted the edit, and thought that the material was worthy of inclusion. Casting practices are fairly standard inclusion in television articles. I agree that the word "notoriety" is somewhat loaded, so I've changed it to the more neutral "fame". It's reasonable to dispute who should and shouldn't be listed in this section, but there's nothing wrong with having such a list in the first place. It's true that a series like Poirot is bound to have young up-and-coming actors appear in it, and many of them will gain greater fame; however, it's worthwhile to note which future stars appeared on the programme.

I will say, however, that I think that the proclamation of consensus here is a bit premature. Consensus isn't majority rule — it's agreement, tacit or explicit. And I don't think that's been reached here yet. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts on casting: when television programmes re-use actors, it's notable, in part because it hearkens back to an older "repertory" model of drama. Consider A Nero Wolfe Mystery, which actually did use a repertory company of recurring actors in various roles — as noted, appropriately, in our article. Now, the repeat casting in Poirot doesn't quite reach that level of repertory, but it's still noteworthy. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God! Are you still using energy on this? It's not useful and it's counterproductive. One of my parents is a theater director. Not film, of course, but similar, so I have overheard discussing many topics like this.. I agree completely with Josiah Rowe. Why not use all this zeal more constructive?

Warrington (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If people insist on including this nonsense about some actors playing multiple roles (which happens in most series that run for any length!), then at least get it right. Off the top of my head, I can think of two actors not listed who played two roles: Geoffrey Beevers and Pip Torrens. – Ianfarrington (talk) 10:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nonsense" just about sums it up. As you rightly say many series have this - I come across many more since the original discussion - and I say we remove this pointless, fan-based, trivia.--UpDown (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dramatiser/Dramatizer

On the dramatiser/dramatizer edit, while I prefer the use of an "s" . It is incorrect to state that this is an Americanisation (Or Americanisation). Both forms are acceptable in UK/ CommonwealthEnglish. The ending comes from the Greek and Latin (some iso/izo verbs which indicate growth and the Latin verb mitto, missum which means send). The use of ise ending came about 100 years ago, being influenced by the French spelling and can be justified in the case of word derived from the Greek by the fact that zeta is not simply the English zed or indeed the American zee. Anyway the point is that in English s or z is applicable and that z is not an Americanisation.

Beyond that I do not think that it is a good word to use.

1936

I have added and referenced my point about the series being set in 1936. I have not added any point about the later series being set beyond the 1930s as i could not find references or have definite facts,a lthough as I said in my post in Trivia I think the dates of a recent episode back this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grakirby (talk • contribs) 10:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I was rewatching the first season, and in the second episode (Murder in the Mews) Poirot is writing a letter of complaint to his laundry company, about the incorrect starching of his collars, and mentions that he sent the first letter on this matter on March 2nd 1935. It's about 17 minutes into the episode. The episode itself is established to begin on Guy Fawkes Night, so we can assume it is November 5th 1935. In episode 6 (Triangle at Rhodes) Poirot is reading newspapers, according to which Italy is about to invade Abyssinia (Ethiopia) soon, which occurred on October 3rd 1935, so episode 6 had to take place before episode 2. Therefore we can already see in season 1 that the episodes are not in chronological order, but appear to take place in 1935. In the recent episode Appointment with Death, the year is given as 1937.Vakie81 (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed that in episode 4 (Four and Twenty Blackbirds), Hedley Verity and England's win of Australia in a cricket match at Lord's Cricket Ground is mentioned, which would place the episode in June 1934, since the famous match took place on 22nd, 23rd and 25th of June in 1934.Vakie81 (talk) 09:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "1936" is not correct, though it may be true for some episodes. A more general statement like "the mid 1930s" is probably better for the earlier series. In the later episodes, especially the long ones, the setting is clearly post-World War II (I believe Taken at the Flood refers to WW II as being in the past). Costumes and technology (esp. cars) support that view. 71.36.157.148 (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Oops, I got logged out by the system. This comment added by Lufiend (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The was a special programme by the name of "Super Sleuths - Agatha Christies Poirot" which aired 2006 in which the producers said they set all the early, 45min episodes in 1936. Since they are adapting the novels (and have stopped plot alterrations such as wrinting Hasting and Miss Lemon in and so forth) they try to use the original time used in the novels.--87.123.215.69 (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Poirot Season 11 DVD.jpg

The image Image:Poirot Season 11 DVD.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done.--UpDown (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information in first paragraph

I have come across some incorrect information in this article and wanted to start a discussion on the best way to correct. The mistake is in this sentence: "Suchet was apparently recommended for the part by Agatha Christie's granddaughter Rosie Hicks, who had seen him appear as Blott in the TV adaptation of Tom Sharpe's Blott on the Landscape"

Agatha Christie only had one grandchild - Matthew Prichard. Her DAUGHTER was Rosalind Hicks and as far as I can ascertain was never referred to as Rosie in print. The only reference to Rosie I can find is the ITV source the above statement used. The ITV source being the source for the incorrect information.

I have found a telegraph article that states the Christie family recommending David Suchet for the role of Poirot. Therefore, if no one has any objections, I will alter the article. Hagi2000 (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

ITV or ITV1

There is an argument going on between myself, and another member of Wikipedia. I say this programme and many others airs on a channel called ITV - he/she says it's ITV1. The fact is, there is no such channel called ITV1. ITV1 is a brand name, used for ITV in England, Wales, Southern Scotland, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The brand name for the channel is Central and the North of Scotland is STV, and in Northern Ireland, it's UTV.

All of these brands together, ITV1, STV and UTV are part of the ITV Network, which is usually just refered to as ITV. Using the ITV1 brand in these articles is selfish to those in most of Scotland and Northern Ireland, who don't see or hear the ITV1 name. What are your thoughts on this matter?
GMc^talk 14:53, 09 January 2009 (UTC)

Whilst I can see what you are getting at, if the series airs on each as one unit (channel) (ie. same sheduled time) then all three should be used (ITV1, STV and UTV) they are separate names for the same channel (brands) or different channels. I'm not fussed which it is! ITV is not a channel it is a company. I know ITV used to be the "brand" or channel name, but this is not true now and even then didn't include STV and UTV as far as I am aware. ITV is a company name. I appreciate the national and naming issues and if the channel (or channels) all apply all should be enumerated in the article. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I do see what you mean about using all three brands, however, in infoboxes - it states the channel that the programme originally aired, and in Poirot's case, the channel was called "ITV" collectively, but all the regional names were still in use - and the ITV1 brand wasn't around back then. Thanks for your views. :D
GMc^talk 03:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to rewrite all of my previous points - many totally ignored by GMc - so I am reposing what I originally said from my own talk page.

"The channel is known near universally as ITV1, as it far more logical to refer to it as this. See this link [1] which not only shows the media use ITV1 but also that ITV themselves do "ITV1 has launched a number of new and original shows as part of its 2008 schedule" said a "ITV spokeswoman". Sometimes the precise legality or technicality of something is overidden by something's common use. This is one of these ocassions."

"Also, as you admit, it is not called "ITV" anywhere, either ITV, STV or UTV. So changing it to "ITV" changes it to a name no one uses. 90% (a guess I admit) use ITV1, ITV themselves says "ITV1", the media say "ITV1" and the channel's presenters refer to it as "ITV1"."

"You haven't answered my other - crucial - points about the fact ITV themselves use ITV1, the media use ITV1 and the presenters use ITV1. Are you telling me therefore that people in those areas never read papers/magazines or listen to TV presenters. Common use trumps precise technicality, and certainly trumps ITV, which is not what the channel is called ANYWHERE."

"I see, so you know more about ITV than they themselves do? Interesting. I would disagree that presenters have cut down on using ITV1, personally I hear it a lot. The name ITV is indeed known across the UK, but as a company/broadcaster. Now we have ITV2 (and ITV3, ITV4), people know it as ITV4, indeed at a guess what at least 85% of the UK's population recieves it as ITV1. At the end of the day, know one gets it as ITV, so its completly wrong it call it that, its Wikipedia almost inventing a channel name because of one editor's view. Common usage demands ITV1."

"This is an interesting link [2]. Ofcom are officially using the term ITV1 for the channel, while later using ITV to refer to the broadcaster as a whole. Again, more evidence that ITV1 is the official term to describe the channel - and how Wikipedia should describe it."

"You cannot back up your arguments by directing me to Wikipedia pages, which you yourself may have written. I would need external links. You are also ignoring 90% of my points, the common usage, the Ofcom source etc etc."

"I didn't say you did write the articles, but the point remains. You cannot back up an argument with a Wikipedia page in the same way we can't self-reference. You seem relucant to find 3rd party sources that back your argument. I also find it interesting that if a source disagree with you, you brand it ignorant. The "licensee" is indeed ITV, but the channel is known as ITV1. You are now making rude remarks - "since you seem to know it all" - and if you continue with these unpleasant remarks I will end this conversation. To quote you "like I keep trying to drum into your head" (again that a bit uncivil in my opinion), ITV1 is how the channel is known by 90% (give or take) of its watchers, its how ITV refer to, how the media refer to it, how the presenters refer to it. Common usage. You also say "ONLY in England, Wales, Southern Scotland and the Channel Islands" - well thats a fair whack of the UK there. I don't think "ONLY" is really correct."

Perhaps any interested people would like to read the whole discussion a my talk page marked User talk:UpDown#ITV1 brand name. --UpDown (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that, as before, GMc has not replied to my above points. How can we have a discussion if you will not discuss?--UpDown (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it concerning that GMc seems very happy to revert - he did so before starting this discussion ordering me not to revert again until the disucssion was finished. So I partake in the discussion, but am ignored, I then revert because my unanswered points. Instead of further discussion, GMc reverts. --UpDown (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Homosexual undercurrents

I am not happy with the following statement in the article:

"Significantly, it was noted that the adaptations of Five Little Pigs (by Kevin Elyot), Death on the Nile and Cards on the Table had a homosexual undercurrent which was not present in the novels."

The source listed for this statement does not support it. It merely says that the homosexual undercurrent in Five Little Pigs (presumably present in Agatha Christie's original) is accurately portrayed in the TV adaptation. No reference is made in the source to Death on the Nile or Cards on the Table. There is a notable homosexual undercurrent in the TV adaptation of Cards on the Table, which I do not believe is present in the book, so it is probably fair to say this, as long as a source for it can be found. I know of no such issue with Death on the Nile. I propose that the statement in the article be deleted as (1) as it currently reads it is inaccurate, and (2) even if the statement about Five Little Pigs and Cards on the Table were corrected, it adds nothing to the discussion here and can easily be added, if necessary, in the appropriate articles on those episodes. For the record, I am aware of the controversy regarding the introduction of non-original homosexual material into the Christie legacy (esp. The Body in the Library in the new ITV Agatha Christie's Marple series) but I do not believe this has any place here. Lufiend (talk) 16:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article states (and simply uses a quote which contains not any proof) that the film adaption of "five little pigs" would bring out the homosexual "subtext" of the novel. This is wrong. There is no homosexual "subtext" in Agatha Christie's novel. Nothing wrong to add new themes to film-adaptations maybe, to add what our own time finds important (this is not what this discussion is about). But "subtext" here simply sounds like Zeitgeist-talk and is used incorrect. What the film does is *add* homosexuality, not bring out something that actually would be in the novel. Georg Fries Klemperer73 (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen the Five Little Pigs adaptation, but Cards on the Table and Death on the Nile made characters homosexual who were not in the original novels. In Cards on the Table this was explicitly stated and was even part of the backstory explaining the murderer's motive. Referring to this as "subtext" or "undercurrent" is absurd. 2.25.111.160 (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I, too, wondered about the inclusion of "Significantly, it was noted that the adaptations of Five Little Pigs (by Kevin Elyot), Death on the Nile and Cards on the Table had a homosexual undercurrent which was not present in the novels," and the version it now stands at. Why is this relevent? If being homosexual was the most natural thing to be, then there is no place for that statement here. And if it does stand, why not a statement such as "All episodes have an undercurrent of heterosexuality?" Doesn't heterosexuality count for anything in this day and age? HaarFager (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What is it called?

In the series Poirot wears a kind of ornate silver device with a small bunch of purple flowers (a nosegay?) in it, on his left jacket lapel. Does anyone know what the device is called? Thank you, Shir-El too 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It is called a tussie mussie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.239.45.25 (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Rumors

Are the rumors in the papers that Poirot has been Axed true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 01:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ITS NOT OVER YET

ITV is reportedly pushing ahead with its plans to film the remaining Agatha Christie novels featuring Hercule Poirot despite reports earlier in the year it had decided to cancel the detective drama.

http://www.atvtoday.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1198:itv-pushes-ahead-with-final-poirot-episodes-&catid=1:tv-media&Itemid=3

Running Times/Episodes

The number of episodes listed, and the numbers listed under production do not align. (63 given for episodes, but production times list only 61). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.87.192 (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Crossover with Agatha Christie's Marple

I have deleted the section erroneously called "Crossover with Agatha Christie's Marple". None of these are "crossovers," which would mean the same actor playing the same character on both shows. What this section consisted of was a very long list of English actors who happened to appear on both shows, which makes it utterly indiscriminate collection of unencyclopedic information. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yellow Iris

"As if to balance this out, the fifth series, broadcast in 1993, contained an adaptation of a Christie story that did not originally feature Poirot, "The Yellow Iris".

It seems that the radio play, at least, featured Poirot. Poirot was removed when the story was turned into the novel Sparkling Cyanide. See Problem at Pollensa Bay and Other Stories. So I removed this sentence.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC).