Talk:The Secret Cabaret

message: It's fair enough to keep that section in if it adds information to the article and it comes from a citatble source. But I edited it to focus on the info it adds to what is already in the article because it was repeating stuff that was dealt with in the main text and also because Wikipedia text shouldn't just be a reproduction of the text of credits. I tagged it because it really needs a footnote specifying which edition the credits were taken from - they may well have differed from series to series and there may have been certain credits that only appeared on particular shows (although more likely related to acts rather than production team).
If we're going to have credits info like this there's an argument that the article should also include the names of onscreen assistants who, if memory serves me right, also appeared in the credits.
Circusandmagicfan 11:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info, I'll put a reference to series one epidode six - that's all that I meant. And to clarify on my contributions, I worked from scratch from the published sources (Open Media, BFI etc), although obviously the text that was in the article previously was what prompted me to do so.Circusandmagicfan 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you really want to contest that wording then I'll see what I can do in terms of finding sources and coming up with something that's absolutely 100% incontestable. But I don't think we really disagree over the gist of what it should say. Maybe the best thing is for me to take out anything that says exactly who praised it for the time being. I mostly did the revert because I think the intro should make reference to the shows getting attention for their dark, edgy presentational style. One recent example of that sort of praise was in last year's BBC2 documentary on the history of magic - I'll see if I can cite the full details.Circusandmagicfan 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Credits info

message: BTW where do you get the line about "praised by broadcasters" from? Is this private infomation, published material, or are you deducing it from the RTS nomination? If the last, then there is probably a better way of characterising things: RTS nominations are decided by the membership of the RTS, which includes broadcasters but also many other categories of people working in the television industry (I just spent some time looking at their website www.rts.org.uk which makes this clear)Testbed 14:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to contest that wording then I'll see what I can do in terms of finding sources and coming up with something that's absolutely 100% incontestable. But I don't think we really disagree over the gist of what it should say. Maybe the best thing is for me to take out anything that says exactly who praised it for the time being. I mostly did the revert because I think the intro should make reference to the shows getting attention for their dark, edgy presentational style. One recent example of that sort of praise was in last year's BBC2 documentary on the history of magic - I'll see if I can cite the full details.Circusandmagicfan 16:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Broadcasters

message: Circusandmagicfan, having been away from the page for a while I see you have been working hard on sources - but have also put back the "created" claim, which has been in and out of the page a few times. You use this, anyway rather odd, word (are TV shows even "created"?) more than once, which seems to be over-egging things rather. However, more seriously, what's your source? When I looked out the old video of the show, there was no indication on the credits of any "creative" work by Drake - apart from being the star, of course (if you look back at the credit list I added, you can confirm this). I am pressing the point as I remain concerned about NPOV (e.g. unsourced "crowned heads of Europe" - joke - and of course that editor who tells you privately he's Drake’s brother but conceals the fact on his User page).
Testbed 18:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you're on about here.  I don't recall using the word "created" and it's not in the article anywhere - where did you get that from? All I've done is quote from the end titles of the episodes in my possession, where Simon Drake has the credit "Conceived and original material" (that is made clear by the citation in the footnotes). Also, you've got me confused with that bit about crowned heads of Europe as that's not in the article either.Circusandmagicfan 10:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many apologies - v hurried when I wrote the above. Of course I meant "conceived": plenty of TV shows have a "created by" credit ('Cheers', I think) but I can't recall too many "conceived"s. Sorry also for missing the footnote in my haste (I'd spent far longer than planned typing out a passage for you for the Drake page, have you seen it yet?) All clear now, except that I'm still puzzled as to why the Secret Cabaret tape I've got doesn't have that credit - or anything remotely like it (I've checked the list of end titles I did for the page, but perhaps I should dig out the tape and look at it again just to make sure - not that I don't believe you, just that for some episodes to have that credit and some not is really odd). Anyway, thanks for bearing with this. BTW the remark about "crowned heads" was signalled as a joke (it's my way of expressing slight nervousness about showbusiness language/claims making their way on to W). You're doing good work on increasing the objectivity of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Testbed (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Created"? 

message: I've now done as promised above and looked out my (only) tape of Secret Cabaret to check the titles again. It is as I thought (and contributed to the page): there is *no* credit for Drake along the lines of "Conceived" - the only credits are the ones I listed at the time. So I question the way you have sourced this, and anyway question your using the strange credit twice within a short entry. My tape is from the first series so the whole business is even stranger: even if "conceived" is a legitimate credit (as per my muddled remarks above under "created") surely the "conceiver" would have "conceived" the first series (that's what "conception" means) and therefore be duly credited for it during that series? I'm baffled - perhaps appropriately so given that we are discussing a TV show about deception and deceivers! Testbed 17:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevertheless I have copies of the show which have the "conceived" credit in the end titles. If needs be I can provide a frame grab as proof. The fact that your tape doesn't have the credit proves little or nothing (especially as you only seem to have the one example). There are a number of reasons why the credit might have been omitted for one or more shows, including errors and clumsy editing. I don't see it in any way as a "strange" credit - why shouldn't Drake have had a significant role in developing the idea for the show (something which is also suggested by some of the other references such as the Magic articles). Circusandmagicfan 23:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't doubt you: if you say so, then there are shows which have the c word. But which series are they from? My tape is from the first series, as I said at the time, and is indeed the last show of the series (traditionally where all possible credits appear, hence my relying on it as a source). Short of asking Drake's TV company for comment on the discrepency (I don't buy "errors" or "clumsy editing" for such an obviously expensive, aimed at the US, TV show), maybe your source, Drake's brother, could help. As to your final point, I don't care one way or another about Drake's involvement: I do care about showbiz hype (and that probably includes the use of showbiz literature as sources) making its way on to W. IMHO there has been a little too much of that on here.Testbed 15:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Conceived"?