Talk:Last of the Summer Wine/Archives2008/June

Featured in The Times?

I can't say for sure because they don't credit us in the article, but it appears that facts from this article were lifted for a trivia section on LOTSW at the bottom of a recent article on high insurance premiums for the cast.[1] Redfarmer (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Lazy journalism on a Murdoch paper? Surely not! </sarcasm> I haven't paid enough attention to the order that the stuff came up, but was the citation on the insurance part provided after that article was written? What I'm driving at is that I hope we aren't getting a circular reference. Ged UK (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It was after the article was written. I added the reference before I even noticed they had included trivia at the bottom. Redfarmer (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool Ged UK (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Prequel?

I think it would be a nice addition if you added what kind of a prequel (at the end of the lead section): novel, TV show, etc. --AnnaFrance (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Redfarmer (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

I am nominating the article for featured article status as I haven't been able to get any feedback and I cannot see what more can be done to improve this article. Redfarmer (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Fingers crossed! Ged UK (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just did a bit of work on the lead paragraph (not sure I'm happy yet, but it's a start), and then took a look at the FAC comments. Whoa! I'm the new copyeditor in town—is this what it's like? It's discouraging, isn't it? Some of the comments are vague, and some of them I simply don't agree with. I see nothing inherently wrong with <noun> <verb>ing construction. And I think a sequence of short sentences is always choppy and amateurish. (I mention that because I saw several references to long sentences.) I've looked at several other FAC procedures and they were very different. It seems to be a random luck-of-the-draw situation. Anyway, I'll proceed on with the copyedit and try not to make sentences too long for the reviewers. BTW: One thing that jumped out at me immediately was the dated comments in the opening paragraph. I didn't see any FAC comments about that, but the MoS definitely doesn't like it.

If there's anything I do that you feel is not an improvement, please don't hesitate to reverse.--AnnaFrance (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it can be quite frustrating. I appreciate all your help so far. It's looking good. Redfarmer (talk) 10:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Series

Do you think that the word "series", used for its two different meanings here, might be confusing for nonnative English speakers? It's just occurred to me while working on the Crew section, and I used "series" when referring to a unit of episodes (first series, second series, etc.), but switched to "show" when referring to LotSW as a whole. Any thoughts? --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(Nonnative speaker speaking) I've heard native speaker say "show" when they mean "episode", and "show" when they mean "TV show". Then there is the whole American and British thing with series/season, and series/TV show/serial. It is usually obvious from context what is meant. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The word causes enough confusion between native US and UK English users in the series/season way! I would use the word show or programme to cover LotSW as a whole, and series for the smaller units. I don't think it should confuse anyone really Ged UK (talk) 14:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right—the confusion is probably mostly an American issue, where the word "series" means the show and is never used to refer to a unit of episodes (which is a "season"). I've been involved in several conversations where Americans have been trying to figure out what a DVD set of the "second series" of a BBC television show could possibly be referring to. One time, someone suggested that might mean a spin-off. :) --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit

Just a couple of tiny points, while I'm thinking about them:

• I presume you've given some thought to whether the TV movie is more of an episode ("Getting Sam Home") or more of a film (Getting Sam Home). In the US I think TV movies are thought of more as movies than as episodes of the TV series.
• This is a very tiny point, but in the Other media section it says that Roy Clarke wrote "a number of" novels. With that phrase being specifically used in the WP material as an example of vague usage to avoid, I thought it might be worth just a small amount of trouble to put an exact number in here.
• Easy fix: I noticed a time being given as "p.m." in the lead section and "pm" later in the article. I didn't want to impose my own stylistic preference, but it should be consistent within the article.

I'll go back to the FAC comments to see if there are any particular areas to focus on now. If anybody has anything specifically in mind that needs to be addressed, let me know. --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Characters and casting

Paragraph 3, sentence 1 introduces "later changes to the cast", while paragraph 4, sentence 1 begins "The original cast ... also included ..." Would the section flow better if those two paragraphs were reversed? --AnnaFrance (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

British Academy Film Awards

It's mentioned that the series has been nominated 6 times, twice for this and 3 times for that. Shouldn't we mention what the 6th nomination was for? --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that may be a mistake. I'll fix it. Redfarmer (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

References

I've been reading WP:CITE and bits of WP:MOS in general, and it's my understanding that when references are given in a Notes section as we have here, they must also all be listed, in alphabetical order, in a regular References section. This makes perfect sense to me. Is there any reason why this hasn't been done here? Something I'm missing about the MoS? --AnnaFrance (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've known some editors who just use the reference section to give the full details of the abbreviated details that they've put in the notes section, if that makes sense. Ged UK (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I believe the MoS refers to that as using "Shortened notes", and they recommend it in many circumstances. But either way, I think the point is that it's nice to have all the sources given in full in the References section. I don't remember (or didn't notice in all the verbiage) the FAC comments including anything about this, though. And considering how picky they got, this confuses me. Have I completely misunderstood this whole issue? In any case, if nobody here can prove me wrong, may I suggest we do this (copy the sources down into the References section)? --AnnaFrance (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

My view is that if the source is a good reference to the show as a whole, then it is worth putting in the references section. However, if we are just using the source to reference a single fact, then it isn't worth putting in the references. For example, the "Guinness Book of Records" might be used to reference the "longest running comedy" fact (if the book contained it). However, the book isn't a valuable reference to Last of the Summer Wine as a whole, so doesn't belong in the References section. Bluap (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The WP:MOS definitely says that Notes sources are supposed to be carried down to the Reference section, where they are all listed neatly in alphabetical order, for the convenience of researchers and fact-checkers. This isn't meant to be a benefit to the reader. I don't know how well the FAC people enforce this, but it seems to me that we might as well do it. It's easy to get rid of if, for some reason, it is decided later that it's not wanted. I've taken the first step by putting the first 3 Notes there, but I'm not used to working with citation templates, so somebody else might do a better job. I wasn't sure when I began if we want them linked to online material, but the more I think about it, I imagine they should be linked. Anyway, anybody up for finishing this? --AnnaFrance (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I've put about everything in the references section but the episode refs. I'm not sure if the episode refs should go there or not. What do you think? Redfarmer (talk) 17:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, that would be getting a bit too detailed. Wow, that Ref section already blew up. I was hoping that I had done something wrong with the citation templates, and that's why they came out sort of 1.5-spaced. Considering that this Ref section is just for researchers and fact-checkers, I sure hate to waste so much space on it. (I realize I'm the one that encouraged this in the first place. :) Unfortunately, for reasons that still hold. But even so...) Anybody know any way to get the Ref section to space the lines normally? --AnnaFrance (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The References section should be reserved for in-depth literature that is used a lot in the article. The Notes section already covers all the blurb mentions. IMO, enlargening the References section to its current depth did not improve the atricle at all. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Admittedly, the MoS doesn't cover situations where some notes are abbreviated but others aren't; however, my interpretation is that the references section should only include those references which were abbreviated in the citation footnotes (i.e. references that are used multiple times) Bluap (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. (I interpreted MoS to say that this situation required Refs. But I hadn't pictured they would be this huge.) At least we have the entries in case they are desired later. If nobody thinks the FA reviewers would mind, I'd vote now to get rid of the extra Refs. --AnnaFrance (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)