Talk:Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series)

message: Leaving to one side the fact that this article is far too long, given that this is just a television series, it has the character of a hagiography and needs to be toned down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.79.153.6 (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiography

message: "...wrote much of the series," says an ignorant somebody.  She *wrote* none of it.  She only did the series format, and acted in it.  Steve from updown.org.uk 2A02:C7D:C62D:B00:F8FB:383B:189E:6260 (talk) 17:17, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Jean Marsh "wrote series"

message: It's spelt differently in the article. Maude vs Maud.  Should settle on one or other for consistency.  She is almost always down as "Roberts", but I have some paperwork for "House Divided" and it's with the "e". Sambda (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Maude spelling

message: Seems odd that they are described as "servant", as that is really a catch-all word.  Would be better to put them down as footmen/valet/under-butler as appropriate - "servant" tells us the obvious, and all the other servants have their positions given (e.g. parlourmaid etc). Also Pearce should also really be down as coachman as well as chauffeur. Sambda (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Job descriptions of Edward, Frederick and Alfred in 2nd table

message: Needs cleanup.  Several erroneous 'facts' added; inconsistency about regular cast vs. recurring characters. Quill 22:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will continue to tidy this page up as much as time allows me. I intend to create a page for each the main characters, a project I've already started. I also want to finish the List of Upstairs, Downstairs characters page. I also think that due to the popularity and length of the programme it would warrant a page on each episode, which I am happy to do. This would cut down the excessivley long and confusing current "Story" as much of this info would be on the individual pages. If anyone has any comments to make etc please let me know. I would really like some more photos on the page (especially on character pages), there are some good photos on www.updown.org.uk, but I'm no specialist on copyright. --UpDown 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Procedure for copyright permission is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission Sambda 11:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: It would be nice if the enthusiastic anonymous user (and we do appreciate your enthusiasm) who keeps adding to this article would fact check material, or add notes that they were not sure of parenthetically; a non-visible note can be added in this manner:  (Shows up when you click the edit this page tab)
Otherwise, there’s so much cleanup to do over material that has already been copyedited.
Thanks!  Quill 23:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no they weren't, I've seen their short-lived series. He promised he'd marry her, he didn't say when. They got into a bunch of hilarious scrapes, but the no-marriage thing is clearly highlighted throughout especially in the episode There Is A Happy Land, Sarah tells Thomas she's pregnant (to stop them from going to America), and Thomas finds out that she's not, and he tells everyone in the town that they are currently living in that they are not married at a dinner party to pay her back (by embarrassing her). Sergeant Snopake 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could the anonymous user please fact check? 

message: What's the story with the Story section? The first half of it's in the past tense and the rest in the present. Clarityfiend 08:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted to change it all so it is all in the past tense. --UpDown 09:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm too tense 

message: I have removed Patsy Smart from the infobox because the infobox should only have the main cast in, otherwise this box would be very, very long. Joan Benham and Raymond Huntley appeared in more episodes than her, so if we put Smart in, they would have to be in as well; and then it would be far too long. Also, Smart was normally only a minor character (except in two episodes). --UpDown 13:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: I have been enjoying this series on ITV4, but have noticed the immense timespan covered in the series.  It begins before King Edward VII dies, but stretches on till the 1930s.  But none of the characters really get any older.
Did the writers acknowledge the passing of the years on the characters, or are the like The Simpsons, always the same age no matter what the year?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.246.71.166 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is set from 1903 to 1930. They did age to an extent, notice James' hair gets grey in the later episodes. Early episodes have comments regarding their age, but the later episodes tend to ignore this. It just about works out to be realistic, but had they gone on any longer it wouldn't have been! --UpDown 09:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Timescale

message: Hazel dies, aged 32, Is her age true ? 
In the German Version - and on the homepage http://www.updown.org.uk -  you can't get this information. --AndreaMimi (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "homepage" is not that, its an unofficial fan website, which actually gives very little character detail. I'm fairly sure 32 is mentioned in the programme, and will revert the removal. Also I think "from series 3" sounds better than "series 3 to 5".--UpDown (talk) 07:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't think Hazel's age was directly mentioned in the programme.  The nearest we get to it is in "A Family Secret" where H says she met Patrick O'Connor when she was 19.  She also says she married him in spring 1902. Since "AFS" was set in autumn 1912, then I think that makes her *at least* 29 in that episode (if they got married immediately after meeting), so *at least* 35 in November 1918 (when she dies).  (Someone else double-check that maths, please!) Sambda (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Don't need a website or book, the programme is reference itself. I think "from series 3" is better, otherwise it suggests perhaps they left earlier in series 5, like when we put "series 1 to 2".--UpDown (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes a table is not a bad idea.--UpDown (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hazels Death 

message: :Image:Upstairs Downstairs.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.--UpDown (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well it looks like one, but you would have to ask the original uploader.--UpDown (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Upstairs Downstairs.gif

message: The story summary for the first two seasons is very incorrect, particularly pertaining to James and Sarah.  James did not force himself on Sarah after he found the servants drinking, he simply embarrassed her and ripped her dress, after which she left Eaton Place.  Some time later, James and Elizabeth found Sarah, ill and destitute in the east end of London while they were volunteering at a Whitechapel soup kitchen.  Elizabeth brought her home and she stayed in service once again at Eaton Place until she was duped into being an accomplice for a dishonest friend of James' and his valet.  She got out of that mess somehow and began performing as an actress.  James began visiting her at the theatre, they began an affair, and then she became pregnant. Mapjc (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Story Summary

message: I know there were a number of people approached to give background information on this show, specifically those who had lived 'downstairs' and could give a perspective on servant life. I don't know who the final choice was, but I think this would be a good point to include in the article if anyone knows the person/persons that should be credited. Sky83 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original inspiration 

message: The following external link: *Upstairs, Downstairs at the BBC was removed cos it linked straight to the BBC News website. I think the link's expired or whatever; if I have time I'll try and find a replaceable link etc or if anyone can find the original BBC page, that'd be cool. londonsista | Prod 02:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link removed 

message: You have nothing to work there and you don't see the tables, that I built. What's about them ? Are the right or not ?
Neve remove my comment's again. That's not your job.  --AndreaMimi (talk) 14:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The tables are not right. Please read up on the correct syntax, and do not insert them again in their current form Mayalld (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: Why is she listed under "upstairs"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambda (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miss Roberts 

message: Now the BBC have released details about a new series, including a photo gallery of stills taken in Leamington Spa, is it appropriate to rename this series by year or by production company and create a new article about the BBC series, which obviously will have its own cast, production and other details. Photomonkey (talk) 01:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think we should follow what editors did with the Doctor Who article, which was to keep the 'classic' series with the 'new' series. Obviously it will require a lot of work, but it is the same show... Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC series 

message: Why is there a comma in the title throughout the article? None of the DVD sets show a comma in the title. 184.100.67.169 (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There shouldn't be a comma in the title. Propose to remove. FunkyCanute (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Googling "comma" and "upstairs downstairs" and it's clear that the comma is generally seen as being part of the original title, even if the on-screen caption doesn't include it. Contemporary TV listings and reviews certainly include the comma, and it is, after all, correct punctuation for what the title is actually saying, i.e. one thing, then something else in contrast, like "north, south." Nick Cooper (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That the comma isn't on the artwork is a function of the layout, with one word below the other. This two-tiered layout makes a comma redundant. But it doesn't mean that the comma isn't part of the title when written out in one line Ericoides (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title format 

message: I updated the title screen shot on the Infobox and this was reverted because the old title screen shot was used on more episodes - this formula isn't used on any other articles. As an encyclopedia we have to keep things up to date, and as such I feel the new titles should be used in the Infobox. Iamthedoctor2009 (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There were 68 episodes of the LWT series, and just three from the BBC. It is grossly disproportionate to not only flip the lead image emphasis to a tiny minority of the total episodes, but also to totally remove the original titles, as you did. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New titles 

message: My recent edits to show the series as 'ended' have been reverted to give the impression that it is ongoing. With no further episodes scheduled, this makes no sense. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. However, Marker10 appears to believe that the Christmas special series heralds a new upcoming series. As of today, the BBC has made no such announcement nor made any indication that further episodes are in the offing.  FunkyCanute (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

text: We don't have to prove a negative. If no annoucement has been made about further episodes, we cannot automatically assume that there will be any. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ended 

message: Marker10, will you please stop trying to claim the recent series as "specials" - a term which normally denotes a single one-off programme. It is clearly a multi-episodic series. Nick Cooper (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are they called Christmas Specials then and why were they not aired weekly if it's a series?n--Marker10 (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This BBC press release clearly describes it as, "a new series of Upstairs Downstairs," and also a "serial," but nowhere uses the words "Christmas specials." I am therefore reverting your spurious and very esoteric opinion. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series, not special 

message: In the Christmas specials, Rose claimed she received the tea set from her late employer - Lord Bellamy.  However, as Lady Bellamy's personal maid, she would still have served for Lady Bellamy, after Richard's death,  instead of running her own business.  Am I the only one who noticed this?  --Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Storyline about Rose

message: 101090ABC (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upstairs, Downstairs to return in 2012 

message: Why are we spelling the title with a comma? It isn't used in either iteration of the titles, and certainly secondary material relating to the BBC series does not use it. So why is it there? U-Mos (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: John Hawkesworth's novelizations have it with the comma, on both the title page and each individual page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the only source that matters is the title card for the show, and there's no comma there for the original series.  I think the article should be titled without the comma. Z57N (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comma 

message: Looking it this page, as well as the sources relating to the new series, it seems to me that it would be sensible to have a seperate article for each iteration. Notwithstanding the time gap between series 5 of the original show and the relaunch, I have not seen any source that refers to the 2010 episodes as "series six" (as the lead does here currently) over a "re-launch" or similar. Also, the almost entirely new cast and situation in the re-launch makes plot summaries very difficult. The characters pages are already seperate, and it seems to work well there. On a minor point, following from my query above it does seem that the orignal series uses a comma in its title, but the re-launch does not in any source I have seen (including BBC press releases), hence the title suggestions I have entered of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) and Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series). Upstairs Downstairs/Upstairs, Downstairs would be a disambiguation page to both articles. U-Mos (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split discussion 

message: but a TITLE CARD.  Upstairs, Downstairs, that is.User:JCHeverly 22:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it. Unreal7 (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's not a caption 

message: Intro includes the following:
:The series stands as a document of the social and technological changes that occurred between 1903 and 1930.
Because the show is fiction (albeit with references to historical events), "document" seems the wrong word.  "Rendering" seems better.108.36.82.122 (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rendering, not document 

message: At http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/8678/Cavalcade/overview, there is a link to the original New York Times review of the 1933 movie Cavalcade, based on Noel Coward’s 1931 play of that name.  A paragraph-long "review summary" that’s posted beneath the said link includes a parenthetical remark that is obviously not from the original review:
:[T]he incidents and characterizations in Cavalcade are very, very close to those seen in the popular 1970s BBC series Upstairs, Downstairs[.]
Maybe that was written by Hal Erickson, who is listed as the author of the Review Summary.
The intro to Wikipedia’s above-linked article about the Coward play includes, without footnote, the following:
:[T]he 1970s Television series Upstairs, Downstairs was based on the play.
Being unfamiliar with all of these works—the play, the movie, and the TV series—I personally can’t remark on any alleged similarity between Coward’s show and Upstairs, Downstairs.  I see no reference to any such similarity in this Wikipedia article (about Upstairs, Downstairs).  Have the creators of Upstairs, Downstairs ever spoken of it?108.36.82.122 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cavalcade 

message: I've just noticed the Media in Cardiff navbox is pinned to the bottom of Upstairs, Downstairs (1971 TV series) when it has nothing to do with Cardiff, as it was produced in London.
Only the Upstairs Downstairs (2010 TV series) was produced in Cardiff, and is the one correctly listed in the box.
So how are navboxes added to the bottom of pages and how can they be removed? Danstarr69 (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: navboxes such as these are added to the article by placing the appropriate code towards the bottom of the page. In this instance, the code is . Deleting that code from this page will remove the navbox. Similar navboxes can be found in categories such as :Category:Television navigational boxes. See Wikipedia:Navigation template for an overview of these templates. clpo13(talk) 17:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Media in Cardiff' Navbox 

message: In the article is the line "Upstairs, Downstairs was one of the first major colour productions to be made by LWT." with a citation. I would just like to get clarification as to whether or not it was one of the first at their new studios, or if it was one of the first colour productions? If it is the latter, they were already producing colour series - see "Doctor In The House" from 1969 - unless that series was produced for LWT and not by LWT. ReggieRocket (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Major LWT Colour Production? 

message: I have moved the text "Richard is elevated to the House of Lords as Viscount Bellamy of Haversham in the New Year Honours List of 1917." from the section  "Fifth series, set in 1919–1930" to the section "Fourth series, set in 1914–1918". Just to explain, I think it is clear from the text that this event takes place during the earlier period, and in fact the episode in which he becomes a peer is "Another Year"  which is the 9th episode of the 4th series, so the text clearly belongs in that section, not the section covering the fifth series. Dunarc (talk) 19:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text relating to Richard Bellamy's peerage